This is Article 1  |  Go to Article 2  |  Go to Message Board

A critical review of the March 27, 1964
New York Times article that first broke
the story   [ Page 1  •  Page 2  •  Page 3 ]

[Continued from page 1.]  In March of 1964, there was no such thing as "911". It was not that simple to contact the police as accounts from that time show. Less than 3 weeks after Kitty's death, the April 2, 1964 edition of The New York Daily News reported:

"This is what happens now [i.e., 1964] in New York. A person in trouble, or somebody who wants to complain to the police, can dial either O for Operator or the police number listed in the front of his borough telephone directory - a different number for each of the five boroughs.

In either case, the call is relayed to the borough Communications Bureau, where an officer takes the information down, asks the caller for his identity, and then passes on the information to the local precinct. There can be delays at any one of the points - the operator, the communications unit or the precinct." [FN 62.]

"New York City's Police Commissioner, Michael J. Murphy, says that the system of separate exchanges and numbers in the five boroughs complicates the handling of emergency calls." [FN 63.]

"From the East Twenties in New York [someone wrote]: 'Shortly after moving in I heard screaming on the street several times, called the police and was politely told to mind my own business.'" [FN 64.]

"Have you ever reported anything to the police?" a letter writer demanded. "If you did, you would know that you are subjected to insults and abuse from annoyed undutiful police such as 'why don't you move out of the area' or 'why bother us, this is a bad area' or you will have a call answered 45 min. after it was put in for aid; when you show interest in law violation being told to mind [your] own business, or go away, take a walk." * * * Another: Nothing annoys a precinct desk captain more than a call after ten o'clock, if you want to complain your neighbors are having a rowdy party and keeping you awake." [FN 65.]

Another New Yorker wrote this to the May 17th, 1964 Times Sunday Magazine:

"... Once, I was so exercised by having to hold the wire for 20 minutes (by actual count) after an apparently serious [car] crash, I followed up the next morning by calling headquarters. The reaction of the officer there was: 'Well, we all make mistakes sometimes, lady.' ... A couple of times, when screams emerged from the shrubbery in the park, I reported them to police with very much the same reaction: that is, a cold reception to civilian interference."

[FN 66.] On the first anniverary of Kitty's death, the New York Times reported:

"Yet, a number of people report that, having once telephoned the police to inform them of a crime, they would not call again because of their first experience with a surly or rude policeman.

Others say that it takes the police too long to respond once the complaint has been made. In most instances, these dissatisfied callers telephoned individual precincts, rather than the [new] central emergency number."

Now let's put what we've just read into perspective. The police told the Times reporter that none of the 38 witnesses called the police until it was too late. However, police officials were in no position to make such a blanket statement. In the days before the creation of 911, incoming emergency phone calls were not monitored or tape recorded as they are today. Therefore, I have to assume that the only written record of such a call was that made by the officer who received it. [FN 67.1.] If for some reason the officer failed to record a call, then no record of the call would exist. Police officials who checked the incoming calls record at a later date would then conclude that no such call was made even though it was. If my theory is correct, it would not be the first time that a neighborhood was wrongly accused of failing to call the police. In 1984, a woman named Barbara Miller Purvis was killed in Brooklyn under circumstances that drew comparisons to the Kitty Genovese murder. Nineteen days later, The New York Times reported:

At first it was believed that no one called the police until the shots were fired; now it appears that there was, indeed, at least one call, to which the police did not respond.

[FN 67.2.]

[The Times article continues:]

The question of whether witnesses can be legally responsible in any way for failure to report the crime was put to the Police Department's legal bureau. There, a spokesman said:

"There is no legal responsibility, with few exceptions, for any citizen to report a crime."

Under the statutes of the city, he said, a witness to a suspicious or violent death must report it to the medical examiner. Under state law, a witness cannot withhold information in a kidnapping.

Today witnesses from the neighborhood, which is made up of one-family homes in the $35,000 to $60,000 range with the exception of the two apartment houses near the railroad station, find it difficult to explain why they didn't call the police.

Lieut. Bernard Jacobs, who handled the investigation by the detectives, said:

"It is one of the better neighborhoods. You only get the usual complaints about boys playing or garbage cans being turned over."

Because Kew Gardens was so crime free, the witnesses would have been naturally inclined to resist the idea that this was a homicide in progress, assuming the thought even occurred to them. Given the circumstances - i.e., the absence of violent crime in the area, the history of early morning noise from the local pub, the fact that no one saw the stabbings, the knife or any knife wounds, and the fact that Kitty left under her own power without continuing to cry out for help - there was no clear indication of an attempted murder. [FN 68.]

[The Times article continues:]

The police said most persons told them they had been afraid to call, but had given meaningless answers when asked what they had feared.

"We can understand the reticence of people to become involved in an area of violence," Lieutenant Jacobs said, "but where they are in their homes, near phones, why should they be afraid to call the police?"

Lieut. Jacobs' belief that witnesses had nothing to fear from reporting a crime was apparently not shared by other police officers. For example, police obtained their clearest description of Moseley from a milkman he passed while making his escape. Former New York City Chief of Detectives, Albert A. Seedman, wrote:

"The police were in no hurry to disclose [the milkman's] testimony. If the killer were to pick up the paper and read that he had been seen so clearly, [the milkman] might end up on the sidewalk at dawn some morning soon, with his milk bottles splattered over him."

[FN 69.] According to Harvard University Professors Stanley Milgram and Paul Hollander:

"In an effort to make the strongest possible case against the Kew Gardens citizens, the press has ignored the actual dangers of involvement, even at the level of calling the police. They have treated the 'fears' of the residents as foolish rationalizations, utterly without basis. In doing so, they have conveniently forgotten instances in which such involvement did not turn out well for the hero."

[FN 70.] In a letter to the Times Sunday Magazine written not long after the killing, a reader wrote of one such well publicized incident that Milgram and Hollander later included in their article:

"Not too many years ago a thug murdered a young man named Arnold Shuster for turning in Willie Sutton, the bank robber. The resulting fear of reprisal from goons has undoubtedly stayed many sympathetic souls."

[FN 71.]  Less than 3 weeks after her death, New York City Police Commissioner Murphy said that the Kitty Genovese murder was not an isolated instance of the public's failure to cooperate with the police. "It happens time and time again, all over the city", he said. [FN 72.]  Murphy's remarks echoed those of his Deputy Police Commissioner for Community Relations who told The New York Times that, "[T]his tendency to shy away from reporting crimes is a common one" [FN 73.] and that "[P]olicemen arriving at the scene of a crime are told most often by the people they find there, 'I didn't see anything.'" [FN 74.]

[The Times article continues:]

He said his men were able to piece together what happened - and capture the suspect - because the residents furnished all the information when detectives rang doorbells in the days following the slaying.

The killer, Winston Moseley, was not captured because of information provided by the Mowbray witnesses. None of them gave a clear description of him, and none identified him at trial. In fact, former New York City. Chief of Detectives, Albert A. Seedman, wrote that by the time they finished interviewing witnesses in the days after the killing, investigators could not be sure of the killer's race or even whether the murderer was male or female. [FN 75.] However, information provided by one Austin Street resident did lead to Moseley's confession. Witness Samuel Koshkin told police that the man who attacked Kitty drove off in a light colored compact. [FN 75.1.] Five days after Kitty's murder, her killer, Winston Moseley, was captured after a botched robbery. Koshkin's description matched the car Moseley used in the robbery attempt. When questioned about it during the robbery interrogation, Moseley confessed to Kitty's murder. [FN 76.]

[The Times article continues:]

"But why didn't someone call us that night?" he asked unbelievingly.

I believe the police were called right after the first assault.

One of the witnesses that night - not identified until now - was a 15 year old boy named Michael Hoffman, whose bedroom on the second floor of the Mowbray Apartments faced Austin Street across from where Kitty was first attacked. Now a retired New York City police officer, Hoffman has stated in an affidavit sworn to under the penalty of perjury that his father reported the incident to the police right after the first attack. [FN 77.]

Years after Kitty's murder, Hoffman became a New York City Police Officer. In his affidavit, he goes on to say:

"I worked as a New York City policeman out of the 112nd Precinct although that was years after Kitty was killed. While stationed at the 112, I met an old timer (it’s been too many years to remember his name) who was almost ready to retire. He told me he was on duty in the 102nd Precinct that night and heard the first call go out as a simple assault. It wasn’t even put out as "in progress". The dispatcher sent out a second call escalating the situation after Kitty was found lying in the hallway."

[FN 78.] Then there was trial witness, Irene Frost, now deceased. Frost is the only one we know of who heard Kitty say that she had been stabbed. [FN 79.] A surviving friend and neighbor of hers (whom I'll call Maggie) tells me that Frost insisted until the day she died that she, too, had called the police after the first attack. What little I know about Frost's background leads me to believe that she did

• Both Maggie and long time Kew Gardens upholsterer, Anthony Corrado, tell me that Frost worked at Belmont Racetrack where she was the right hand man (make that, right hand woman) for well known horse trainer, Max Hirsch. (Hirsch's 1946 Triple Crown winner was named, ironically, "Assault"). According to Corrado, when Hirsch's race horses went north each year to race at Saratoga, it was Frost who went there and supervised the entire operation for him - right down to the stable hands and backtrack boys. I cannot imagine Frost holding down that kind of job if she were indecisive or easily frightened.
  
  
• Former New York City Chief of Detectives, Albert A. Seedman, found Frost to be one of the few eyewitnesses to give investigators valuable evidence - writing in his book that she used her eyes "with great discrimination". [FN 80.] Seedman's reference to Frost's discriminating eyes, was perhaps, a small joke on his part. Although not described precisely this way in the book, both Maggie and Corrado tell me that Frost shocked detectives by telling them right after the attack that she knew the unidentified killer at large was a "n*gger" by the way he lifted his knees as he ran - a racial characteristic she said she observed during her 15 years working at the race track. According to Seedman, she even offered to bet the officers money that she was right. [FN 81.] Irene Frost comes across in Seedman's book (as well as from Maggie and Corrado) as tough and feisty - someone who would not have sat on her hands knowing, as she did, that Kitty was being attacked. Corrado gave me an example of her strength of will. Years later, after Frost had had a stroke, Corrado visited her and found her trying to rehabilitate herself by pushing around a wheel barrow filled with dirt.

There is at least some evidence to corroborate that Hoffman and/or Frost called police. According to Newsday (a local newspaper):

"In reports immediately following the [Kitty Genovese] crime, police admitted receiving several calls, but said the caller hung up before they got any information."

[Bracketed text is mine.] [FN 82.] Mowbray witness, Andree Picq said that she called police early on, but when an officer got on the line, she felt her voice stick in her throat and she hung up. At trial, she said she felt "scared" and "kind of frozen". [FN 83.] However, Picq only called once, and the Newsday article refers to "several calls". Whoever the other caller(s) were, they must have made some reference to the attack, otherwise police would have had no way of knowing that these calls had anything to do with Kitty, as the Newsday article suggests they did. Furthermore, the fact that the caller or callers hung up might have reflected more on police procedures than on the callers. Kitty's murder took place 40 years ago when there was no such thing as 911. In his 1964 book on the case entitled, Thirty-eight witnesses, the Times Metropolitan Editor, A.M. Rosenthal wrote:

"Another delay in New York [in 1964] results from the fact that policemen who handle incoming calls at the Communications Bureau usually ask for identification and other details before passing the information along to a radio room for relay to a radio car in the area.

* * *
[As a result of the Kitty Genovese murder, there] was a decision by the police not to insist on getting the names of people calling in with complaints ... ."

[Bracketed text is mine.] [FN 83.1.] So, reading between the lines, the problem may not have been that no one called to report the first attack. Rather, it may well have been that whoever did call in did not want to identify themselves, and the police were slow or reluctant to act upon anonymous complaints.

[The Times article continues:]

Witnesses - some of them unable to believe what they had allowed to happen - told a reporter why.

A housewife, knowingly if quite casually, said, "We thought it was a lover's quarrel."

Given what little they saw and heard, that was not necessarily an unreasonable conclusion for them to draw at the time. R. Lance Shotland was a Professor of Psychology at Pennsylvania State University who studied the so called "Bystander Syndrome" - i.e., bystanders who do not help crime victims. He found that:

"Certain types of crime, such as a man's attack on a woman, have unique features that may particularly invite misinterpretation and inhibit intervention. One Genovese witness said, 'We thought it was a lovers' quarrel.' Bystanders frequently reach similar conclusions when a man attacks a woman. * * * [I]f bystanders see a man and a woman fighting, they will usually assume that the combatants know each other."

[FN 84.] No where in thisTimes article does it say that Kitty continued to cry out for help during the time it took her to get from Austin Street to the hallway in the rear of the 2 story Tudor Building. If these two witnesses thought it was a lovers' quarrel, how many of the other witnesses thought the same thing?

[The Times article continues:]

A husband and wife both said, "Frankly, we were afraid." They seemed aware of the fact that events might have been different. A distraught woman, wiping her hands in her apron, said, "I didn't want my husband to get involved."

One couple, now willing to talk about that night, said they heard the first screams. The husband looked thoughtfully at the bookstore where the killer first grabbed Miss Genovese.

"We went to the window to see what was happening," he said, "but the light from our bedroom made it difficult to see the street." The wife, still apprehensive, added: "I put out the light and we were able to see better."

See what better? Unless we know how much they saw and what they heard, we have no objective way of judging their behavior. The Times reporter retraced the police investigation and spoke to the same witnesses the police did - and as I read A.M. Rosenthal's account, the witnesses were quite candid in their answers. [FN 84.1.] Yet, not a single first person account of what these witnesses saw is reported in this Times article.

Note how the last couple mentions that turning on the light in their apartment that night made it difficult to see the street. If you awaken suddenly at night and turn on the bedroom light, you will be blinded for a while until your eyes adjust. Furthermore, when viewed from a lighted room, the darkness of the night outside will cause a glass window to act more like a mirror. The article has already told us that an unspecified number of witnesses also turned on their lights. Would they not have had the same difficulty in seeing what was happening outside?

The Times account of the witnesses' behavior also suffers from a bit of a timing problem. Based on the accounts I have read, my best guess is that the time which elapsed from when Kitty first screamed until Moseley ran off would be measured in seconds, not minutes. If so, then a witness did not have much time to get to an open window if he or she was to catch sight of Moseley. Many witnesses, especially elderly witnesses, may not have been that quick. For example:

• Even those who were awakened immediately would have had at least a few seconds of disorientation.
  
  
• Witnesses who first turned on their bedroom lamps would have needed time for their eyes adjust to the light, and to make their way to the windows.
  
  
• Witnesses who first tried looking out (unsuccessfully) from lighted rooms through closed windows would have seen delayed in seeing anything.
  
  
• Witnesses who were slow to awaken or react would also have been delayed. The delay becomes greater for older witnesses.

So, given all the possibilities for delay, it is not hard to imagine that by the time they opened their windows and located where the scream came from, many witnesses could have missed seeing Moseley at all, or even seeing Kitty prostrate on the ground. If all they saw was Kitty, alone, wandering off dreamlike, they would have had even less reason to suspect a criminal attack.

[The Times article continues:]

Asked why they hadn't called the police, she shrugged and replied, "I don't know."

Notice that in none of these interviews does the Times reporter pin down the witnesses as to whether they realized at the time, that this was a homicide in progress and not just a lovers' drunken quarrel. If the witnesses believed it was just alcohol induced rowdiness, their reluctance to get involved is understandable even if it is not laudable. Robert Mozer was the witness who, from his seventh floor apartment window, initially warned Moseley off. A year after Kitty's death, he told the New York Times, "I just couldn't realize he was killing her. I thought they were some kids having fun." [FN 85.]

So far, nothing I've read in this story makes me think the witnesses were knowingly indifferent or apathetic that night. They were awakened suddenly in the middle of the night (when no one's powers of judgment or observation would be 100%) to a situation they did not fully witness and for which they were completely unprepared. Either they did not realize what was going on, or else they went into denial. According to Professor Shotland:

"People who see a crime, an accident or other unlikely event may wonder, 'Did it really happen?' and freeze while they try to figure it out."

[FN 86.]

[The Times article continues:]

A man peeked out from a slight opening in the doorway to his apartment and rattled off an account of the killer's second attack. Why hadn't he called the police at the time? "I was tired," he said without emotion. "I went back to bed."

Once again, the Times does not pin down whether the account of the killer's second attack that this man rattled off was something he saw or heard himself, or something he learned about from someone else afterward. And once again, the Times does not tell us what the man said he saw or heard. Press reports of any incident will always emphasize the first person accounts of witnesses over the second hand accounts by police - using the latter to supplement the former or when there are no witnesses available. Here, the Times reporter did just the opposite. He spoke to all the witnesses, yet he quotes none of them as to what they saw, heard or thought as events were unfolding - preferring instead to relate only what "the police say happened". That seems odd if the witnesses saw and heard as much as the Times suggests they did.

In any case, as mentioned above, what the Times calls the "second attack" (i.e., the attack by the drug store or the parking lot side of the 2 story Tudor Building) never happened. So the man must have been referring to the final attack that took place in the hallway of the 2 story Tudor building. I first thought that this man might be Karl Ross, but Ross did not go back to bed as the Times says this man did. The Times clearly refers to Ross earlier in this article as being one of the two people police met on the street when they first arrived on the scene. My best guess is that this unidentified man was trial witness, Samuel Koshkin, who lived in the West Virginia Apartments. Koshkin could not have seen that attack." [FN 87.] According to former New York City. Chief of Detectives, Albert A. Seedman, all Koshkin saw was Mosely entering the same door in the rear of the 2 story Tudor Building that Kitty had entered several minutes before. He then picked up the telephone to call the police, but his wife stopped him. Don't", she said. "Thirty people must have called by now." [FN 88.]

[The Times article continues:]

It was 4:25 when the ambulance arrived for the body of Miss Genovese. It drove off.

The Times is incorrect in suggesting that Kitty was already dead when she was put into the ambulance. As of the date this Times article was published, it had already been reported for 2 weeks that Kitty died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. [FN 89.] That was fact confirmed by the testimony at Moseley's trial. [FN 90.]

The History Channel program said that Kitty bled to death. [FN 91.] That, too, is incorrect. At Moseley's trial, the Medical Examiner testified that the cause of death was "bilateral pneumothorax due to multiple stab wounds", and he defined that term as "meaning air in the chest cavities compressing the lungs". [FN 92.]

[The Times article concludes:]

"Then," a solemn police detective said, "The people came out."

In fairness to the residents of Austin Street, a lot of early morning police activity (e.g., squad cars, flashing lights) would have drawn a crowd in a way that isolated cries in the middle of the night would not have.

Kitty Genovese, possibly at Ev's Eleventh Hour Club, where she was a manager. Image does not enlarge.

Postscript

"I still wonder. I wonder if they heard screams, not a death; saw shadows not a stabbing. As I write this I hear a car alarm going off in the parking area where I live. What to do." [FN 92.1.]

In order to understand the story of the so called 38 witnesses, it is important that you understand what it means to be a "witness". For the vast majority of us, the meaning of that word is shaped by film, television and novels. In the world of fiction, a witness is someone who sees something clearly and fully understands its significance. So when we read of police reports that there were 38 witnesses to Kitty's slaying, we assume that those 38 saw and comprehended everything. However, in the world of criminal justice, the term "witness" has a much broader meaning. It applies equally to all of the 5 senses, not just sight, and more importantly, to be a "witness" you need not understand the meaning of what you have experienced. Let's take a hypothetical example.

Suppose that at 3AM one night you get off a subway and begin walking to your apartment. You're tired and you want nothing more than to climb into bed. From somewhere several blocks away, you hear a shriek. It sounds like the screech of a car alarm, and since faulty car alarms go off all the time in New York City, you pay no attention to it and continue on your way. If it should turn out that you heard the scream of a murder victim and not a malfunctioning car alarm, you would be a witness to the crime despite the fact that you were several blocks away, saw nothing, and misunderstood what little you heard. Furthermore, if everyone else in the neighborhood slept through that one scream, you might well be a material witness if you alone could fix the time and approximate location of the attack.

The grave of Kitty Genovese at Lakeview Cemetery in New Caanan, CT. Click to enlarge. [Reprinted with permission from Jonathan Bloomfield. Copyright © Jonathan Bloomfield (2006). All rights reserved.]

Now suppose that the local newspaper ran a story the following day saying that you heard the victim's scream but ignored it because you were tired and just wanted to get to bed. That story would be literally true as far as it went (you did hear it, you did disregard it, and you did want to get to sleep), but to the average reader, it would convey the false impression that you realized at the time it was a scream for help when in fact you didn't. There seems to have been a lot of that kind of reporting in the Kitty Genovese case.

The fact that the police and the press reported that 38 people were "witnesses" to the Kitty Genovese murder does not tell us much. It does not tell us precisely what they saw, what they heard, and most important, what they perceived or understood. As explained above, I believe those witnesses saw, heard and understood a whole lot less than is generally supposed.

The headline and opening paragraph of this Times article say that 38 witnesses watched for 30 minutes as a woman was stalked and stabbed to death. The only evidence which is said to support that accusation is evidence that we cannot review or evaluate - police records of interviews with witnesses after the killing. According to the History Channel:

"Police reports confirm that 38 law abiding citizens did watch an atrocity unfold but did nothing to save the victim's life."

[FN 93.] However, the History Channel provided no details from those reports that go beyond what I have set out above and what is set out above does not confirm that the witnesses (save three) saw the stabbings or the attempted r*pe. In his book, former New York City Chief of Detectives, Albert A. Seedman, said:

"When they totaled it up, [detectives who had interviewed the witnesses in the aftermath of the crime] found that the number of people who had been aware of what was happening to Kitty came to a shocking 38.

[Bracketed text is mine.] [FN 94.] Although Seedman was one of the best criminal investigators the New York City Police Department has ever had, I have to part company with him on this point for several reasons:

1. "[W]hat was happening to Kitty" (Seedman's words) was that Moseley was trying to kill her. Nothing I've seen to date makes me think that, as the events unfolded, any of the witnesses comprehended that except, perhaps, Karl Ross, Andree Picq, Joseph Fink and Irene Frost. Joseph Fink saw Kitty stabbed during the first attack and Irene Frost heard Kitty say she had been stabbed, but they also saw Moseley run off and Kitty get up and leave without making any further outcries for help.
   
   
2. It is asking a lot of these witnesses to suggest that, after they saw Moseley drive away and Kitty walk off, they should have known that he would later return, find Kitty, and murder her.
   
   
3. If anyone would have had access to police records, Seedman would have. Yet, like the History Channel special, he provides no details about any witnesses other than the ones mentioned here. If there were other witnesses who saw or heard more, I think Seedman would have mentioned them and given the specifics. He does not. His version of the events that night does not differ in any material way from what I have described above.
   
   
4. We do not know whether these unnamed witnesses admitted to what Seedman says, or whether they denied it, but the police disbelieved them. Without knowing what they told the police, we cannot judge whether their denials, if any, were credible.
   
   
5. No matter how good Seedman was at his job (and he was very good), he was not the one who conducted the police interviews. Instead we are asked to accept, at face value, second hand information of what unnamed detectives concluded without knowing to whom they spoke, how well they conducted the witness interviews, what they were told, or whether their conclusions were justified. University of Arkansas Professor Donald P. Judges summarizes some of the problems inherent in police questioning of witnesses:

   "During an interview, the eyewitness interacts with a law enforcement official, a person perceived by the cooperative witness as trustworthy and in a position of authority. Unconscious social pressures can lead the witness to try to please the officer, even if the information they offer is not entirely accurate.
   
   This social response is heightened by repeating the same questions - witnesses may infer that the first answer was not satisfactory. Response can also be influenced by multiple choice questions - was the car green or blue? The witness may think that the answers "red" or "I don’t know" are not acceptable."

   [FN 95.]

Why No Initial Police Response - an Alternative Explanation [Many have taken the position that the absence of any police response to the first attack on Kitty is proof that none of the witnesses called the police. However, an equally possible explanation is that witnesses called, but their descriptions of what they saw and heard were insufficient to convince the police that the incident should be given priority. (See main article to the right of this sidebar.) For example, the following excerpt comes from the online edition of the St. Paul, MN Pioneer Press, 08/23/2007 10:25:14 PM CDT] When someone did call police to 371 S. Winthrop Ave., the caller reported drunken people in a hallway, not a violent assault, so the 911 dispatcher classified it as a "disturbance," Gray said. The first 911 call came at 2:43 a.m. Tuesday, and police arrived at 3:25 a.m., she said. "That was a significant time lapse, but it would have been cut down significantly" had the caller described the attack differently, Gray said. Emergency calls in St. Paul are assigned priority numbers from 1 to 4, indicating how quickly police must respond. The caller's account triggered a "priority four," rather than a "priority two," assigned to violent crimes in progress, said Tom Walsh, a police spokesman. "Priority one" is assigned only to calls of a police officer down, Walsh said. "The reason we prioritize calls is we don't have enough bodies to answer all of them," Walsh said. Officers are instructed to respond as quickly as they can, he said. The case is reminiscent of one seared in the American memory - the 1964 Kitty Genovese murder in New York.

Based on what we do know, I believe that however many witnesses there were that night, the vast majority of them did not see or hear enough to realize the seriousness of what was happening. One local newspaper interviewed a resident of the Mowbray whom, I suspect, was typical of many of the witnesses:

"'I heard something that sounded like two people talking loud. That's all. I looked down [from the 5th floor] and I saw two heads. How could I tell he had a knife - or it was anything but another drunken brawl?' [This witness] points to the fact that the building is practically flush with the sidewalk . . . and trees line the curb."

[FN 96.] In 1984, another Austin Street resident told New York Daily News crime reporter, John Melia:

"I didn't hear anything. My husband thought he heard someone screaming, but when he looked out no one was there."

[FN 97.] Then there is the question of the elderly residents. Even assuming that failing eyesight or hearing was not a factor, it is my experience that the elderly are more easily confused and frightened than those who are young or middle aged. That idea comes through clearly in an interview, shortly after the killing, with another Mowbray resident described as an "elderly matron" who said:

"Of course I heard the screams. But there was nothing I could do. I was afraid. My hands were trembling. I couldn't have dialed for an operator if I'd tried. I never even thought of it. I was too afraid."

[FN 98.] Although reactions such as her's were dismissed as "meaningless" [see above], my layman's opinion is that it could have been a natural reaction by many seniors.

We know of only the following 7 witnesses who probably understood at the time that what they were seeing was a more serious matter than just some patrons of the Old Bailey bar behaving badly.

1. Karl Ross lived in an apartment one flight up from where Kitty was attacked for the second time. Although he must have realized what was happening, he delayed calling the police because he had been drinking heavily that night and did not want to deal with them. [Click here.] Even had he called immediately, it is debatable whether Kitty would have survived the wounds she had already received in the second attack. However, Ross presumably had no way of knowing that at the time. If Ross has an excuse for his delay, it can only be that he freaked out.
   
   
2. Joseph Fink was the assistant superintendent in the Mowbray Apartments. According to former Assistant Queens District Attorney, Charles Skoller, Fink was in a sofa chair facing a very large bay window, saw the first attack take place, and knew exactly what was happening. He saw the knife as it struck Kitty in the back. [Click here.] (Although Skoller does not say so, Fink would also have seen Moseley run away, then Kitty get up off the ground and leave under her own power without any further outcries for help.) Skoller says Fink got up from his sofa chair, went downstairs to his apartment and went to sleep. He did nothing else. [Click here.]
   
   
3. Irene Frost did not see any of the stabbings, but she did hear Kitty cry out that she had been stabbed, and like Fink she also saw Kitty leave the scene under her own power. [FN 98.1.] Former New York City Chief of Detectives, Albert A. Seedman, says that Frost was still at her window when Mosely later returned to look for Kitty. [FN 98.2.] At trial, Frost said she was not. [FN 98.3.] Frost told friends that she had called police right after the first attack.
   
   
4. Andree Picq was a native of France. She was one of only 2 witnesses we know of who saw the first stabbings (the other being Joseph Fink). She testified she saw Moseley beating Kitty. [FN 98.4.] Since there has never been any evidence of a beating, it seems apparent that Picq saw Kitty being stabbed, but misunderstood what she was seeing - not an uncommon occurrence for eyewitnesses to crimes. [FN 99.] Picq was still at her window some 5 - 8 minutes later when Moseley returned to look for Kitty who, unknown to Picq, had collapsed in the hallway in the rear of the 2 story Tudor building across the street. She watched Mosely search for Kitty in the doorway of the corner drugstore and the parking lot. Then she heard two last pleas for help from Kitty. Picq said that she picked up the phone after the first attack to call the police, but her voice stuck in her throat and she hung up. She did not try to call again. She described herself as being "scared, kind of frozen". [FN 99.1.]
   
   
5. Mrs. Robert Mozer was, of course, the wife of trial witness, Robert Mozer. Like Andree Picq, Mrs. Mozer was at her window when Moseley returned to search for Kitty after an absence of several minutes. She had lost sight of Kitty several minutes before when Kitty walked away "dreamlike", "not staggering", and disappeared from sight around the near corner of the 2 story Tudor building. [FN 99.2.] It is hard to judge Mrs. Mozer because we do not know how much, if any, of the first attack she saw or heard. We can certainly assume that her husband told her at the time that he had seen Moseley bending over Kitty and then running off. However, her husband also told the Times that he thought that the incident was just "some kids having fun". [FN 99.3.] If so, and if he said that to his wife, then Mrs. Mozer may not have thought it any big deal when she saw Moseley poking around the corner drugstore several minutes after she lost sight of Kitty. Indeed, according to former New York City Chief of detectives, Albert A. Seedman, it seemed to Mrs. Mozer that Moseley was walking normally, as if he didn't have a care in the world. [FN 99.4.] There is nothing I know of to indicate whether Mr. of Mrs. Mozer tried to call the police, and I will assume they did not since he made no mention of it in an interview with the Times a year later. [FN 100.]
   
   
6. and 7.   Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Koshkin lived in the West Virginia Apartments on the west side of the parking lot. From their vantage point down the block, the Koshkins could not have seen either of the attacks. They heard Kitty's scream from the first attack and then saw Moseley run to his car and drive off. [FN 100.1.] Since their sixth floor apartment overlooked the parking lot, they could see Kitty make her way around to the back of the 2 story Tudor building and enter one of the doorways there. [FN 100.2.] Several minutes later, they watched as Moseley returned and searched the parking lot area looking for Kitty. Since they had seen Kitty enter the back of the 2 story Tudor building, they may well have thought she was beyond Moseley's reach. When they saw Moseley enter that same door, Koshkin went to call the police. His wife stopped him saying that 30 people must already have called. [FN 100.3.]
   
   

Whatever fault you may choose to assign these 7 witnesses and the others, their collective failings fall far short of the Times' indictment that 38 apathetic witnesses watched for 30 minutes while a stabbing death unfolded before them in plain view, and decided they could not be bothered calling the police. With the exceptions of Andree Picq, Joseph Fink, and Karl Ross, the worst that can be said of these witnesses is that they either ignored a scream in the night or failed to do anything to help someone they had reason to think was injured. I do not minimize the seriousness of those failings. My point is simply that those things happen every night in New York City. If that's all the story were, it would never have made page 1 of the world's press much less become so much a part of our national psyche. [FN 101.]

What has made this story resonate over 4 decades were the very aspects of it that appear to have been so badly exaggerated: that 38 people reportedly watched or listened for a full 30 minutes and - seeing or knowing that a woman was stabbed to death, - refused to call the police. [FN 101.1.] As far as I can tell, that scenario, as set out in the headline and lead paragraph of this Times article, did not take place.

Unfortunately, when it came to defending themselves, the good people of Kew Gardens were a public relations nightmare. Statements they made to the press seemed to sound the wrong note and could have given even potential skeptics the uneasy feeling that what the Times reported could well have happened. One resident's reaction to the furor surrounding the 38 witnesses was,"Let's forget the whole thing. It is a quiet neighborhood, good to live in. What happened, happened." [FN 102.] Another was reported to be indignant that the community was described in press accounts as "middle-class" rather than "upper middle-class". [FN 103.] A third said, "Oh, for another chance, though I guess we'd do the same thing again." [FN 104.] When the Times published an article marking the tenth anniversary of the case, one well intentioned Kew Gardens shopkeeper wrote a letter to the editor expressing regret and disbelief at the incident, but adding.

"... I would like to say that such unnecessary publicity so many years after the fact, again draws bad attention to our neighborhood, and does no good whatsoever to our businesses. ... However, I would also like to say that as long as you wrote such a long article, why couldn't you, at the same time, give a plug and put in a good word for the shopping area on Lefferts Boulevard with its many nice stores."

[FN 105.]

For whatever the reason, the Times account of the murder has become accepted history and Kitty's name has become immortal. With the possible exception of Anne Frank, I cannot think of another private figure (i.e., someone unknown before his or her passing) whose death has had the impact that Kitty's has. [Ironically, Anne Frank addressed her famous diary entries to an imaginary friend she called "Kitty".] For example:

• The story caused an uproar when it first appeared - drawing a rebuke of the 38 witnesses from U.S. President Lyndon Johnson, among other public officials. [FN 106.]
  
  
• The Times article inspired four states (Vermont, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Rhode Island) to pass "Good Samaritan" laws requiring citizens to render assistance to persons in need. [FN 107.]
  
  
• The story of Kitty and the 38 witnesses has inspired a short story by Harlan Ellison [Click here to read a synopsis and review on another web site.]   [FN 108.], a song by Phil Ochs [Play a 302 KB clip of the song]  [FN 108.1.], and a made for TV movie [FN 109.], as well as plays, and even musical dramas. [FN 110.]
  
  
• Even today, one need only do a search for "Kitty Genovese" in Google News Groups to see how often her name and story (in varying versions) are invoked. [Click here.]
  
  
• According to the November 16, 2001 New York Post, the Times' version of Kitty's murder is in every introduction to psychology book. It has also been the subject of professional studies and academic seminars. [FN 111.]

In the words of A. M. Rosenthal:

"... the half-hour before [Kitty] died of her wounds has been studied in classes from grade school to universities, dissected in graduate seminars, and related in church sermons, all in the search for some meaning."

[Bracketed text is mine.] [FN 112.] It is difficult to imagine that psychologists, sociologists, clergy and others have spent 40 years searching for the meaning of a phenomenon that did not occur.

Could the residents of Austin Street have reacted better than they did that night? Of course they could have. Anytime humans are involved in anything, the answer to the question, "Could they have done better?", will always be "Yes". The real issue is whether the witnesses' response fell so far short of perfection as to be worthy of the kind of attention and condemnation that they have drawn for over four decades. I don't think it did. For all these years, the 38 witnesses have been portrayed as freaks who displayed a depraved indifference to human life and suffering. If my take on the case is correct, then the truth is far less sensational. At worst,they were just 38 ordinary people who fumbled. [Read a DePauw University psychologist's supporting view.]

One final thought: let's assume for argument's sake that the Times was right, and no one called the police. Would Kitty have been saved if they had? Maybe not.

If the incident had been called in as an attempted homicide, the police would given it their highest priority. However, the witnesses had no reason to think it was that. They saw Kitty for only a few moments. Save for Joseph Fink, they did not see the stabbings, and they did not see blood or a knife. So at most, the incident would have been reported as an assault - and not even an assault in progress, but one in which the assailant had been seen to run off and the victim to walk away. (In these days before 911, callers had to identify themselves and give details of the crime they were reporting.) That would have made the matter a much less urgent one and drawn a slower police response than a homicide in progress - perhaps too slow a response to have saved Kitty. Surviving witness (and, later, New York City Police Officer), Michael Hoffman, says that that is exactly what happened.

Furthermore, when a patrol did show up, it would have gone to where the attack had reportedly taken place - Austin Street in front of the 2 story Tudor Building. However, Kitty would not have been there anymore. She had gone into a small hallway in the rear of the building. If the officers had found nothing but peace and quiet on an empty street, they would have had little reason to get out of their car and search the area since the call was of a simple mugging whose victim had walked away.

[Thanks to retired N.Y.C. Police Officer Michael Hoffman for this insight.]

So even had the police been called right after the first attack (assuming they weren't), it may well have made no difference. That's something else to consider in passing judgment on the 38 witnesses.

---

• Read a shortened version of this article which summarizes its main points.
  
  
• Read a bibliography and list of sources on the case.
  
  
• Read viewer comments about the case, and post your own.
  
  
• Send me your questions, comments and criticisms. Your email addresss will not be published or given to anyone else without your prior consent.

[The New York Times article reprinted here is subject to the following: Copyright © 1964 by the New York Times Co. Reprinted by permission.]