Dr. Renatus Hartogs sex scandal
Dave Reitzes
(quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Landmark Cases
Summaries by
James F. Hooper, M.D.
[...]
1976 Julie ROY v. Renatus HARTOGS, M.D.
381 NYS 2d 587 NY Appellate Court NY
Hartogs 'treated' Roy from 1969 - '70 with sex. Defendant said she was
emotionally injured. Hartogs said 'there is no law against seduction.' Court
awarded Compensatory & Punitive damages. Appeals affirmed; this was
Malpractice, not seduction, but dropped punitive damages, as he was
incompetent, not malicious. Dr. Hartogs sued his insurance Co., they said this
was not covered under professional Treatment, was not "treatment. " They won.
Case was made into a book & movie. ( Betrayal ) Dr. Hartogs got no royalties.
(end quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://psych.justicefreedom.org/page17.htm
(quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
New York psychiatrist Renatus Hartogs leaves the courtroom after being ordered
to pay $350,000 to a patient he sexually abused. Hartogs had attacked his
accuser as "an incurable schizophrenic," but at the trial two other women came
forward to testify that the psychiatrist had similarly abused them.
(end quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.paralegals.com/Reporter/Fall96/howfar.htm
(quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Women and the Law
How Far They've Travelled
It's been a long, hard road, and women of our generation and those preceding it
have struggled to blaze a trail for females striving to cut inroads into the
legal profession. Not until recently have women received equal treatments in
the court rooms, either. But they have made headway.
by Lindsey Martin-Bowen
NPR Editor
[...]
Within the past 20 years, judges and juries have ruled for plaintiffs in such
psychiatric rape cases. For example, a New York jury convicted psychiatrist
Renatus Hartogs of malpractice in 1975 and awarded $350,000 to Julie Roy, an
Esquire magazine secretary whom Hartogs seduced when she was his patient. See
Roy v. Hartogs, 366 N.Y.S. 2d 297 (1975), motion to dismiss denied, 381
N.Y.Sup.Ct. 2d 587 (1976).
(end quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.advocateweb.org/hope/historicaloverview.asp
(quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sexual Exploitation
Historical Overview
by Gary Richard Schoener
[...]
From March 10 to 19 the case of Roy v. Hartogs was tried in New York City. It
was widely reported in newspapers around the U.S. and Canada. Julie Roy, the
plaintiff, charged Dr. Renatus Hartogs, a psychiatrist with good credentials
and the author of a column for Cosmopolitan magazine, had sexually exploited
her. Ms. Roy won the suit and the next year co-authored a book, Betrayal, which
was later made into a made-for-TV movie of the same title (Freeman & Roy,
1976). While not the first such case, its broad publicity led to many other
clients coming forward and presaged the local and national coverage of other
cases in by news media.
(end quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dave
Perpetual Starlight
http://reitzes.www4.50megs.com/
Original fiction, articles, music and more
Kenneth A. Rahn
This is really interesting information. I suppose the operative question
then is whether his abusing patients would throw his assessment of teenage
Oswald into doubt. Linked or unlinked?
Ken
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010725050455...@ng-df1.aol.com...
Magic Bullet
Kenneth A. Rahn <kr...@uri.edu> wrote in message
news:3b5e...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> Dave,
>
> This is really interesting information. I suppose the operative question
> then is whether his abusing patients would throw his assessment of teenage
> Oswald into doubt.
Linked or unlinked?
Ken, we all know sex deviants are notorious liars. Unless their names are
Clay Shaw, Dave Ferrie, John Edgar Hoover... or jack Ruby.
greg
Magic Bullet
on top of all your other talents.
I sent a post yesterday touching on LHO's psych
reports... it didn't get posted (I've resent it
since)... but suddenly this emerges out of the
ether.
Well done!
greg
Dave Reitzes <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010725050455...@ng-df1.aol.com.
..
Dave Reitzes
>Dave,
>
> This is really interesting information. I suppose the operative question
>then is whether his abusing patients would throw his assessment of teenage
>Oswald into doubt. Linked or unlinked?
>
>Ken
I'm not qualified to judge, but I am cautious about accepting Hartogs's
1953 conclusions because of both a seeming lack of supporting details in
his report (to my layman's eye, anyway -- there seems to be quite a leap
between 'neglected and detached' and "schizoid features") and the apparent
distortions in the contemporaneous seminar discussed in Hartogs's 1964
Warren Commission testimony, in which Oswald apparently served as a case
study for a psychological condition quite unlike the one profiled in
Hartogs's actual report.
I want to add, before Michael Russ jumps in with his usual defense of
Hartogs, \:^) that I have no axe to grind against the good doctor, nor do
I have any reason to dismiss his professional judgment of 1953. As a
layman, I do *question* his judgment, however, based on his description of
the above-mentioned seminar, which Hartogs insisted in 1964 was indeed
based upon Lee Oswald's condition.
This skepticism has only been heightened by my very recent reading of
Hartogs's 1965 book, *The Two Assassins,* in which Hartogs repeats the
apparent distortions of Hartogs's Warren Commission testimony --
particularly his characterization of the teenage Oswald as "potentially
explosive," a conclusion wholly absent from Hartogs's 1953 report, and
despite the confrontation with WC counsel that took place at that time
over this very issue. I cannot help but question his integrity under such
circumstances. There seems to be more than a hint of self-aggrandizement
present. ("If only they'd listened to me, our beloved President would be
alive today!")
Dave
"I would describe Lee Harvey Oswald at the time I saw him as being
potentially explosive. I suggested that he receive psychiatric treatment
so that his inner violence -- what might be called his silent rage --
would not later erupt and cause harm."
-- From Renatus Hartogs, M.D., Ph. D.'s Preface to
Renatus Hartogs and Lucy Freeman, The Two Assassins (New York: 1st Zebra
edition, 1976), p. 11.
(quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
YOUTH HOUSE
PSYCHIATRIST'S REPORT
5/7/53
Bronx
Case No. 26996
Name OSWALD, Lee Harvey
Age 13
Date of Admission 4/16/53
Date of Examination May 1st, 1953.
Psychiatrist Renatus Hartogs, M.D., Ph.D.
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 likes the give the impression that he
doesn't care about others and rather likes to keep to 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 of awkwardness and 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.
Lee is a youngster with superior mental endowment functioning presently on
the bright normal range of mental efficiency. His abstract thinking
capacity and his vocabulary are well developed. No retardation in school
subjects could be found in spite of his truancy from school. Lee limits
his interests to reading magazines and looking at the television all day
long. He dislikes to play with others or to face the learning situation in
school. On the other hand he claims that he is "very poor" in all school
subjects and would remedial help. The discrepancy between these claims and
his actual attainment level show the low degree of selfevaluation and
selfesteem at which this boy has arrived presently, mainly due to feelings
general inadequacy and emotional discouragement.
Lee is the product of a broken home as his father died before he was born.
Two older brothers are presently in the United States Army while the
mother supports herself and Lee as an insurance broker. This occupation
makes it impossible for her to provide adequate supervision of Lee and to
make him attend school regularly. Lee is intensely dissatisfied with his
present way of living, but feels that the only way in which he can avoid
feeling too unhappy is to deny to himself competition with other children
or expressing his needs and wants. Lee claims that he can get very angry
at his mother and occasionally has hit her, particularly when she returns
home without having bought food for supper. On such occasions she leaves
it to Lee to prepare some food with what he can find in the kitchen. He
feels that his mother rejects him and really has never cared very much for
him. He expressed the similar feeling with regard to his brothers who live
pretty much on their own without showing any brotherly interest in him.
Lee has a vivid fantasy life, turning around the topics of omnipotence and
power, through which he tries to compensate for his present shortcomings
and frustrations. He did not enjoy being together with other children and
when we asked him whether he prefers the company of boys to [that] of
girls he answered "I dislike everybody." His occupational goal is to join
the Army. His mother was interviewed by the Youth House social worker and
is described by her as a "defensive, rigid, self-involved, and
intellectually alert woman who finds it exceedingly difficult to
understand Lee's personality and his withdrawing behavior. She does not
understand that Lee's withdrawal is a form of violent but silent protest
against his neglect by her and represents his reaction to a complete
absence of any real family life. She seemed to be interested enough in the
welfare of this boy to be willing to seek guidance and help as regards her
own difficulties and her management of Lee.
Neurological examination remained essentially negative with the exception
of slightly impaired hearing in the left ear, resulting from a
mastoidectomy in 1946. History of convulsions and accidental injuries to
the skull was denied. Family history is negative for mental disease.
SUMMARY FOR PROBATION OFFICER'S REPORT:
This 15 year old well built boy has superior mental resources and
functions only slightly below his capacity level in spite of chronic
truancy from school which brought him into Youth House. No finding of
neurological impairment or psychotic mental changes could be made. Lee has
to be diagnosed as "personality pattern disturbance with schizoid features
and passive - aggressive tendencies." Lee has to be seen as an
emotionally, quite disturbed youngster who suffers under the impact of
really existing emotional isolation and deprivation, lack of affection,
absence of family life and rejection by a selfinvolved and conflicted
mother. Although Lee denies that he is in need of any other form of help
other than "remedial" one, we gained the definite impression that Lee can
be reached through contact with an understanding and very patient
psychotherapist and if he could be drawn at the same time into group
psychotherapy. 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 a 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 out-patient's 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. The Big Brother Movement could be
undoubtedly of tremendous value in this case and Lee should be urged to
join the organized group activities of his community, such as provided by
the PAL or YMCA of his neighborhood.
(signature)
Renatus Hartogs, M.D., Ph.D.,
Senior Psychiatrist.
(end quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Magic Bullet
Hope you don't mind me jumping in...news:20010726002805...@ng-xa1.aol.com.
..
> >From: "Kenneth A. Rahn" kr...@uri.edu
> >
> >Dave,
> >
> > This is really interesting information. I
suppose the operative question> >then is whether
his abusing patients would throw his assessment of
teenage> >Oswald into doubt. Linked or unlinked?
> >
> >Ken
>
>
> I'm not qualified to judge, but I am cautious
about accepting Hartogs's
> 1953 conclusions because of both a seeming lack
of supporting details in
> his report
Not really all that unusual. It only had to be
sufficient for a court and was not subject to peer
review.
(to my layman's eye, anyway -- there seems to be
quite a leap
> between 'neglected and detached' and "schizoid
features")
Bud, there IS quite a leap between the two. It was
included for a reason.
and the apparent> distortions in the
contemporaneous seminar discussed in Hartogs's
1964> Warren Commission testimony, in which Oswald
apparently served as a case> study for a
psychological condition quite unlike the one
profiled in> Hartogs's actual report.
The original clinical findings got extrapolated.
But *if* there was any conference on Oswald, it
was not the usual weekly conference. The reason he
gave the WC for choosing Oswald as the subject of
such a conference was predicated on the charge
against Oswald being minor in relation to his
"dangerousness". Only special cases were chosen as
subjects of the conferences - and as it turned
out - judging by the original reports - there was
nothing "special" here. And don't forget - he not
only didn't initially remember his personal
interview with Oswald - he also initially didn't
recall the "Oswald Conference".
Any conference or meeting in regard to Oz, I put
it to you, was for the benefit of the Senate
Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency. Lee watched
a lot of TV, read a lot of comics. The
Subcommittee at that very time was looking for a
link between those passive activities and violence
and delinquency in youth. Enter...Hartogs with a
case "special" only to such a subcommittee. And
Hartogs, ever willing to please his adopted
country, rigs the report to give them the link
between tv and comic violence and "problem" youths
they are looking for...
> I want to add, before Michael Russ jumps in with
his usual defense of
> Hartogs, \:^) that I have no axe to grind
against the good doctor, nor do
> I have any reason to dismiss his professional
judgment of 1953. As a
> layman, I do *question* his judgment, however,
based on his description of> the above-mentioned
seminar, which Hartogs insisted in 1964 was
indeed> based upon Lee Oswald's condition.
Your concerns are valid.
> This skepticism has only been heightened by my
very recent reading of
> Hartogs's 1965 book, *The Two Assassins,* in
which Hartogs repeats the> apparent distortions of
Hartogs's Warren Commission testimony --
> particularly his characterization of the teenage
Oswald as "potentially
> explosive," a conclusion wholly absent from
Hartogs's 1953 report, and
> despite the confrontation with WC counsel that
took place at that time
> over this very issue. I cannot help but question
his integrity under such
> circumstances. There seems to be more than a
hint of self-aggrandizement> present. ("If only
they'd listened to me, our beloved President would
be> alive today!")
No. You'll find a picture of M.N. McDonald under
"self-agrandisement" in the dictionary.
In Hartogs' case, try patriotism and greed. With
some, they amount to much the same thing, anyway.
greg
lda...@gmail.com
to the NY mental health clinic (we were considered "sick" in those days)
and they referred me to Dr. Hartogs. He was the classic randy old man.
He called women "cunts" and "luscious cunts" and tried to "cure" me of
being gay by talking dirty and encouraging me to "fuck the luscious
cunts". And this man was supposed to be a doctor??!!
He also told me that women "loved to be raped." What? A doctor saying
this? He even threatened to have me hospitalized if I did not "change."
So what did he want me to do? Go around raping women who loved to be
raped? At any rate, I became so discouraged by his "therapy" that I
stopped going to him. His conviction of seducing his female patients was
no surprise to me!
Laurence