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.
Why a phone call might not have helped
In his 1964 book, Thirty-eight Witnesses, A. M. Rosenthal writes that one of the most frequent complaints about the New York City Police Department of forty years ago was, "The length of time it took police to respond to calls." [Footnote I-5.] That tells me that the officers then were overburdened, not slack, and Rosenthal's book seems to confirm that fact. [Footnote I-6.]
We know that police officers in those days who received incoming calls about alleged criminal activity would often insist on getting details of the incident and the identity of the caller before passing the report on to the radio dispatcher. [Footnote I-7.] That makes sense. If an overburdened police force was to make the most efficient use of its limited resources, the dispatchers needed some assurance that they were not sending patrol cars off on wild goose chases or to respond to situations that did not require their presence.
Calls about the first attack
If one or more witnesses other than Joseph Fink had telephoned the police right after the first attack on Kitty, they could only have reported what they saw or heard. At best, they could have reported that:
- Kitty had screamed,
- She also cried out that she had been stabbed, and
- One of them had seen Kitty on the ground and an assailant beating her.
I am certain that the officer taking the call would have tried to ascertain whether the attack was one that was still in progress. He would have been told, "No", since the first attack was over with so quickly. [Click here.] I am also certain he would have asked whether the attacker was still on the scene and, again, would have been told, "No". The attacker had run or driven away. [Click here.] The officer would surely have asked about Kitty's condition and would have been told that she had walked off dream-like or staggered away. [Click here.] He likely would have asked whether Kitty had made any further outcries for help, and again, have been told no. [Click here.]
Although such an incident, as reported, would have been considered serious, it would not have told the officer that this was a murder in progress. The fact that the attack had ceased, that the attacker had fled, and that the victim had left the scene under her own power without making any further pleas for assistance would, in my layman's opinion, have led the police to give such reports much less priority than a murder or other violent crime in progress. If a patrol car had been sent at all, it might not have been until too late.
Although it could have occurred to the officer taking the calls that Kitty might be injured, he might also have concluded that what was needed, if anything, was medical attention and not a patrol car. However, without any indication of the severity of the victim's stab wounds (flesh wound or life threatening), he had no way of knowing for certain whether an ambulance should be called. Moreover, without an identity or address for the victim (who had left the scene), he had no place to send an ambulance to. (I suspect that in 1964, as today, it was not a proper use of ambulances to send them out to search for people whose location and need for emergency medical attention was uncertain.) Under those circumstances, the officer could well have concluded that pending a specific complaint or request for help from the victim or her family, there was no further or immediate action to be taken.
Calls about the second attack
We know of five witnesses who saw Moseley return about 10 minutes after the first attack. [Click here.] By that time, Kitty had disappeared from their view having entered the rear entrance of the 2 story Tudor building. [Click here.] Assuming again that none of these people telephoned the police, it is still far from certain that Kitty would have been saved had calls been made to report the assailant's return.
Apart from the fact that, as far as the witnesses knew, Kitty had left the scene some 10 minutes before (thus reducing the apparent immediacy of the situation), the biggest problem was the time factor. According to former Chief of Detectives, Albert A. Seedman, only about 2 minutes elapsed from the time Moseley returned to look for Kitty until he found her collapsed in the rear hallway. [Click here.] He then immediately inflicted the rest of the wounds from which she eventually died. [Click here.] Even if they gave the call top priority, it seems unlikely that the police could have arrived in time to prevent the second stabbings since, by all accounts, it took longer than 2 minutes just to get connected to an officer. [Footnote I-8.] However, in that instance, Kitty would have made it to the hospital some 20 to 30 minutes ealier than she did. Whether that would have made a difference is impossible for me to say.
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 September 7, 2004 to include references to Joseph Fink.
The Murder of Kitty Genovese:
Kitty might not have been saved by a phone call
In his book on the case, the Times A. M. Rosenthal stated what has remained one of the most widely held beliefs about the Kitty Genovese murder:
"If any one of the witnesses had put in a call while Miss Genovese was being attacked, the chances are that she would have been saved, for when the call did come the police arrived within a matter of a few minutes."
[Footnote I-1.] Let's assume that no one called the police after the first attack [but, click here]. If the telephone call Rosenthal envisioned had been made by Joseph Fink who witnessed the first stabbings and realized what was happening, [click here], chances are the second attack would have been thwarted. Apart from Fink, however, there are a number of problems with Rosenthal's theory.
First, because the initial attack was over with so quickly, [click here], none of the witnesses could have telephoned while it was still ongoing, as Rosenthal contemplated. The calls would had to have been made after Moseley had fled. [Click here]
Second, apart from Fink, it is not certain how many other witness saw or heard enough to be able to convince the police that a patrol car was needed. [Footnote I-2.] Imagine for example that the following two witnesses had reported what they saw and heard to the police (the quotes are real):
WITNESS NO. 1
"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." [Footnote I-3.] [Bracketed text is mine.]
WITNESS NO. 2
"I didn't hear anything. My husband thought he heard someone screaming, but when he looked out no one was there." [Footnote I-4.]
Third, to get the kind of urgent police response that Rosenthal envisioned, the first attack needed to be reported as an attempted homicide in progress. The police would have given such a call their highest priority (which is why they responded so quickly when Kitty was discovered dying of multiple stab wounds). However, none of the witnesses had any reason to think it was that. They saw Kitty for only a few moments. [Click here.] Once again, except for Joseph Fink, they did not see the stabbings, and they did not see blood or a knife. [Click here.] So at most, the incident would have been called in as an assault - and not even an assault in progress, but one in which the assailant had been seen to drive 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. See, sidebar.) 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. `In fact, surviving witness (and, later, New York City Police Officer), Michael Hoffman, says that that is exactly what happened. [Click here.]
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.
Click here to read a detailed analysis of the
March 27, 1964 New York Times article that broke the story.
| Footnotes |
- A. M. Rosenthal, Thirty-Eight Witnesses: The Kitty Genovese Case., Part 2, p. 59 (Berkeley : Univ. of Calif. Press 1999). Click here and scroll down to p. 59 to read this book on another web site. Close out window to return here.
- See also, Martin Gansberg, "37 Who Saw Murder Didn't Call the Police", The New York Times, p. 1, col. 4 (March 27, 1964) (Quoting Assistant Chief Inspector Frederick M. Lussen as saying, "If we had been called when he first attacked, the woman might not be dead now.")
Footnote I-2: Loudon Wainwright, "The View From Here: The Dying Girl That No One Helped", Life Magazine, p. 21, col. 2 (April 10, 1964) ("Not all of these people, it must be said, understood they were watching a murder. Some thought they were looking at a lovers' quarrel. Others saw or heard so very little that they could not have reached any conclusion about the disturbance.").
Footnote I-3: Witness quote from: Edward Weiland, "Austin Street Can't Forget an Unheeded Cry in the Night", The Long Island Press, p. 5, col. 5 (March 28, 1964).
Footnote I-4: Witness quote from: John Melia, "Stigma remains from Genovese case", The New York Daily News, col. 3 (Queens Edition) (Month and day not known, 1984). [PDF - 231 KB]
Footnote I-5: A. M. Rosenthal, Thirty-Eight Witnesses: The Kitty Genovese Case., Part 2, pp. 48 - 49 (Berkeley : Univ. of Calif. Press 1999). Click here and scroll down to pp. 48 - 49 to read this book on another web site. Close out window to return here.
Footnote I-6: A. M. Rosenthal, Thirty-Eight Witnesses: The Kitty Genovese Case., Part 2, p.47 (Berkeley : Univ. of Calif. Press 1999) ("Radio cars and patrolmen are supposed to be patrolling every section of the five boroughs day and night. But as an official of the department said, 'It's nice if you are in the right spot at the right time. But it isn't always possible.'"). Click here and scroll down to p. 47 to read this book on another web site. Close out window to return here.
Footnote I-7:
" ... 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 ... ."
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 I-8:
- Affidavit of Michael Hoffman, para. 7.
[HTML] [PDF - 251 KB] ("My father was on the phone at least five full minutes, most of it waiting to be connected to the police dispatcher.") - "There's a Duty to Get Involved", The New York Daily News, p. 5 (April 2, 1964) ("[New York City Police Commissioner Michael] Murphy acknowledged that there have been many complaints about delays in getting through to the police under the present system.") (Bracketed text is mine).
- A. M. Rosenthal, Thirty-Eight Witnesses: The Kitty Genovese Case., Part 2, pp. 57 - 58 (Berkeley : Univ. of Calif. Press 1999) ("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."). Click here and scroll down to pp. 57 - 58 to read. Close out window to return here.
