Back
Home
Email Me
About Me
Read Guestbook
Guestbook Archives
Sign Guestbook
Where Are They?
What's New
Find It
Need It
Links
Books
Your Old Photos
1920's Map
Current Map
Back | Cont'd
The Kitty Genovese Murder Scene
Click to enlarge.
Calling the New York City Police in the days before 911
Less than 3 weeks after Kitty's death, the April 2, 1964 edition of The New York Daily News reported:
"[New York City Police Commis- sioner Michael] Murphy acknow- ledged that there have been many complaints about delays in getting through to the police under the present system."
[Footnote B-5.] In his 1964 book on the Kitty Genovese murder, the Times' A.M. Rosenthal described what that system was like:
"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." [Footnote B-6]
"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.'" [Footnote B-7.]
"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." [Footnote B-8.]
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."
[Footnote B-9.]
In fairness to the police, the officers who had to field incoming calls had a different perspective. According to former Chief of Detectives, Albert A. Seedman:
"[As desk sergeant], you spent four hours at the switchboard, taking all calls that came in to the Precinct [including wasting] time talking to nuts, drunks, and lonely people who wanted to tell you either how great or how lousy you were doing your job."
[Bracketed text is mine.] [Footnote B-10.]
Times Article Analyzed
Click here to read the March 27, 1964 New York Times article that first broke the story, along with a paragraph by paragraph analysis of why I think the Times got the story wrong.
Disclaimer
Throughout this page, I will cite to various media accounts of the case. I do so only for the factual statements they contain and not because the authors of those accounts agree with the opinions I express here.
In the Public Domain
My thoughts, comments and opinions about this case along with all images created by or for me are dedicated to the public domain. They may be copied and used without credit or compensation to me. I claim no rights in the trial transcript and briefs included here.
This page was created on January 14 2004 and revised on January 27, 2004.
The Murder of Kitty Genovese:
The police were called after the first attack
One of the witnesses to the first attack on Kitty was a 15 year old boy named Michael Hoffman. Today in his mid-fifties, Hoffman has signed an affidavit sworn to under penalties of perjury in which he says that he awoke to see Moseley run away, and Kitty get up and stagger off. Since he did not see the stabbings, he thought Kitty was drunk or had been beaten. He told this to his father who immediately called the police. [Footnote B-1.]
"Eventually, dad got through to the police. He told the dispatcher what we had seen and heard - that a lady was "beat up, but got up and was staggering around". He told the dispatcher her location was "by the drugstore at the LIRR station", and that the lady walked away but appeared dazed. My father was on the phone at least five full minutes, most of it waiting to be connected to the police dispatcher.
* * *
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."
[Footnote B-2.] If Hoffman's father called police, then it means other people may well have called, too. There is evidence to indicate that they did.
In its July 23, 1995 edition, a Long Island, NY newspaper called Newsday reported at p. A3 that:
"In reports immediately following the [Kitty Genovese] crime, police admitted receiving several calls, but said the caller hung up before they got any information."
[Footnote B-3.] Presumably the caller or callers gave at least some information about the attack, otherwise, the police would have had no way of knowing that the 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 reflcted more on police procedures than on the callers. Kitty's murder took place 40 years ago when there was no such thing as 911. [See sidebar.] In his 1964 book on the case entitled, Thirty-eight witnesses, the Times Metropolitan Editor, A.M. Rosenthal wrote:
" ... the three most frequent complaints [against the New York City Police Department in 1964 included]: ... The necessity of having to answer personal questions before action was taken.
* * *
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.] [Footnote B-4.] 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 - especially when the complaints were not of a murder in progress, but of a simple assault in which the attacker had fled and the victim was seen to walk away.
Click here to read a detailed analysis of the March 27, 1964 New York Times article that broke the story.
| Footnotes |
Footnote B-1: Affidavit of Michael Hoffman, paras. 2 - 7. [HTML] [PDF - 251 KB]
Footnote B-2: Affidavit of Michael Hoffman, paras. 7, 12. [HTML] [PDF - 251 KB]
Footnote B-3: Curtis L. Taylor, "'Neighborhood Rues Reopening Of Murder Case", Newsday, p. A46, col. 1 (July 23, 1995).
Footnote B-4: A. M. Rosenthal, Thirty-Eight Witnesses: The Kitty Genovese Case., Part 2, pp. 48 - 49, 50, 57 (Berkeley : Univ. of Calif. Press 1999). Click here and scroll down to pp. 50 and 57 to read this book on another web site. Close out window to return here.
Footnote B-5: ;"There's a Duty to Get Involved", The New York Daily News, p. 5 (April 2, 1964).
Footnote B-6: A. M. Rosenthal, Thirty-Eight Witnesses: The Kitty Genovese Case., Part 2, pp. 57 - 58 (Berkeley : Univ. of Calif. Press 1999). Click here and scroll down to pp. 57 - 58 to read. Close out window to return here.
Footnote B-7: A. M. Rosenthal, Thirty-Eight Witnesses: The Kitty Genovese Case., Part 2, pp. 46 - 47 (Berkeley : Univ. of Calif. Press 1999). Click here and scroll down to pp. 46 - 47 to read. Close out window to return here.
Footnote B-8: A. M. Rosenthal, Thirty-Eight Witnesses: The Kitty Genovese Case., Part 2, p. 46 (Berkeley : Univ. of Calif. Press 1999). Click here and scroll down to p. 46 to read. Close out window to return here.
Footnote B-9: "Letters", The New York Times Sunday Magazine, p. 22 (May 17, 1964).
Footnote B-10 Seedman & Hellman, Chief!, p. 51 (Arthur Fields Books, N.Y. 1974)
