What would you do if you were out and about, or even at home, just minding your own business, and all of a sudden you heard the scream of someone calling for help? It could be a man, it could be a woman, all you know is they are yelling at the top of their lungs for aid. Or perhaps you don’t just hear it, but you actually see it.
Someone is being attacked and is in a bad way, clearly needing help. What would you do? Or, on the flip side, what would you expect if you were in that situation?
You were in trouble, being attacked, or something similar, and you desperately needed help. If you were screaming for aid, would you expect someone to come to help you or call for someone to? If someone saw that you were in trouble, would you expect them to come and help you, try to save you?
If the answer is yes, then I’d say that’s likely what most people would expect. Even in the messed up world we live in, we’d like to think that we would help should we hear that someone is in trouble. And if we were in trouble, we’d like to think someone would come to our rescue.
But what happens when a situation like this occurs, when someone cries for help, when someone hears those cries or even sees the evil deed being done…and does nothing to help?
It is with these questions, and these examples, that the darkness swallows us yet again, and I tell you the sad tale of a woman who needed rescuing, needed help, but her screams were unanswered, even when they were heard by many. How much of that initial story is the truth, though? And how much is fiction? I think it’s time we find out. This is the story of Kitty Genovese…and how no one, allegedly, came to save her.
Hello, Dear Kitty
Let us start with the name we should always remember from this travesty, the name of the victim, the name of the poor young woman who endured what she did not deserve to endure. Catherine Susan Genovese was born on July 7th, 1935, to Italian-American parents Rachel (née Giordano) and Vincent Andronelle Genovese in Brooklyn, New York City, New York. To her family and friends, she was known simply, lovingly, as Kitty.
The eldest of five children, they all lived together in a brownstone in the neighborhood Park Slope, a place which mostly consisted of Irish and Italian folk. Raised in a traditional Catholic upbringing, Kitty attended the all-girl Prospect Heights High School where she excelled in her English and music classes. Her graduating class elected her as the “Class Cut-Up”, which means that she was the class joker, and loved to make jokes.
She was smart, she was a hard worker, and was described by many to be a kind and caring girl, having “a sunny disposition.” Just an overall lovely girl living life in the Big Apple.
What would you do, as a father, if you witnessed a murder first-hand in your neighborhood? If your answer was to pack up your shit, pack up your family, and move to a different location entirely, then you and Rachel Genovese have something in common. That’s because, in 1954, Rachel witnessed a murder in proximity to where she and the rest of the family lived, so she insisted that the whole family should move away for their own safety.
Vincent agreed with his wife’s wishes, and the whole family moved to New Canaan, Connecticut…all, that is, except for Kitty. You see, Kitty had decided to stay in Brooklyn, and would stay with her grandparents after the rest of her family had moved away. Rachel wasn’t pleased about it, she wanted her daughter to come with them, to be safe.
But Kitty was insistent, she had just graduated high school and she wanted to stay and continue preparing for her upcoming marriage to a man by the name of Rocco Anthony Fazzolare, an army officer and engineer. And so her family respected her wishes, allowing her to stay. They’d very soon regret not making her come with them.
Kitty and Rocco would be married on October 31st, 1954…but it wouldn’t last long as the marriage was annulled by the end of the year and the couple would officially divorce by 1956. The reason? Because Kitty was actually a lesbian. From there, Kitty moved into an apartment of her own, living her best life in the big city, or at least that’s what she wanted.
She wanted to enjoy life, to be independent, hence why she stayed while her family moved away. She didn’t have it easy though, doing jobs she didn’t enjoy just to make ends meet. In Kitty’s case, it was a number of clerical jobs, sitting behind desks all day working as a secretary. However, her dream was to open up an Italian restaurant, a business she could call her own, but for that, she needed money.
She did eventually find a job she liked though, when she started working as a bartender in the late 1950s.
Now even with a job she enjoyed, it wasn’t all sunshine and rainbows for Kitty. She still had her struggles, and she didn’t exactly keep her nose clean either. It wasn’t anything too serious, but she did get in trouble with the law in August 1961 for bookmaking.
Basically, she was a bookie, and in Kitty’s case, she had been taking bets on horse races from bar patrons. This is, from how it sounds, illegal, and when she was found out, she and a friend of hers named Dee Guarnieri were put under arrest, and each fined $50 (equivalent to $490 in 2024). After that little bump in the road though, her life started to pick up.
She got herself another bartending job, this time at Ev’s Eleventh Hour Bar on Jamaica Avenue and 193rd Street in Hollis, Queens. She worked her butt off, showing her skills and capabilities, and soon took up the role of managing the bar since the owner was always absent. Working double shifts, she started earning more and more money, and her dream of opening a restaurant got closer and closer to fruition.
She was making good money too, making roughly $750 a month, which is about $6,800 a month today. And on top of that, she had found herself a girlfriend.
This was Mary Ann Zielonko, and the two of them had met on March 13th, 1963 at Swing Rendezvous, an underground lesbian bar in Greenwich Village. They fell hard for each other, becoming a couple almost immediately, and they decided to move in together, getting a new apartment on the second floor of a two-story building next to the Long Island Railroad (LIRR) in Kew Gardens, Queens, New York. Because of the stigma against gay and lesbian couples back in the day (which ridiculously still happens in some places today), they had to play at being roommates. However, they loved each other very much, and they wanted to walk the long road of life together.
Life was on the up and up, and things were finally falling into place. Kitty was finally happy and moving forward towards her dream. Things couldn’t get any better…but it didn’t last for long.
In the Dead of Night
The night of March 13th, 1964 was a night like any other, though aren’t they all? You go out to work, going about your day and night, thinking it was just another normal day. You never think that that day, that night, would be the final night of your life.
This section here will cover the incident as it was initially reported and covered by the authorities and the media and is the most well-known version of the attack. It was 2:30 in the morning on March 13th, 1964, and Kitty had just gotten off of her shift at the bar. Another busy night, another successful night, and she was ready to head home to celebrate her and Mary’s one-year anniversary…that honestly makes what’s about to come even worse, doesn’t it? Kitty got into her red Fiat and began her journey home, arriving at 3:15 am.
Parking her car in the Kew Gardens Long Island Rail Road station parking lot, she was a mere 100 feet (30 m) from home, and the door to her apartment building was in sight. All she had to do was make her way down the alleyway at the rear of the building and head inside. And that’s when it happened.
You see, while on her way home, Kitty had no idea that the darkness had an agent out on the prowl that night. He was hunting for a victim, and unfortunately, he had spotted her. He looked at her, her face bright with excitement despite being tired from work, and he knew…he knew he needed to claim her life. And so he followed Kitty back to her apartment complex, parking his vehicle at a corner bus stop on Austin Street.
Getting out of his car, hunting knife in hand, he stalked towards her. Kitty spotted him before he could sneak up on her and, seeing the knife, made a run for the front of the building. Unfortunately, Kitty wasn’t fast enough. Her attacker caught up to her, and plunged the knife into her back two times.
Kitty let out a cry of pain, and screamed for help: “Oh, my God, he stabbed me! Please help me! Please help me!”
The area around them was quiet, and desolate, with almost all residents in the vicinity being sound asleep in bed. But that only seemed to intensify the volume of Kitty’s cries, which did grab the attention of one man. This was Robert Mozer, one of Genovese’s neighbors. Her screams woke him up from his slumber and, shambling over to the window, he saw the struggle down below. Opening his window, Robert stuck his head out and cried: “Let that girl alone!”
With attention now on him, the assailant took off into the night, leaving Kitty bleeding from the back and struggling to stand. Kitty, valiantly willed her body to move, and managed to pull and drag her body to the other side of the building toward the main entrance. Once inside the main vestibule area, she collapsed from the pain, blood loss and exhaustion. Time passed, and all the while Kitty was left there, barely conscious and bleeding in a hallway in the back of the building.
She’d moved out of sight of the original attack, so Robert wasn’t even sure of where she had gone. But even then, no one came to see if she was alright.
Ten minutes later, her attacker came back. He was thin and on the shorter side, and he was an African American man with a gaunt and slender face. Only this time, he was wearing a wide-brimmed hat in an attempt to conceal his features. Wasting no time, he took the hunting knife out once again, stabbed her 11 more times, sexually assaulted her in the hallway of her home building, stole the $49 she had on her person…and then simply walked off into the night. The entire affair lasted a total of 30 minutes.
Kitty’s friend and neighbor, Sophia Farrar, discovered her there, bloody and violated, in the same position she was left in by her attacker. Injuries to her hands suggested that the entire time she was being attacked, she was trying to fight him off, fighting for her life. Exactly how it happened is still hazy, but multiple neighbors claimed that they had called the police and an ambulance at around 3:50 am after the attack was already over.
They were there in two minutes, but an ambulance wouldn’t arrive until 4:15, an extra 30 minutes after the attack had finished. Sophia stayed by Kitty’s side, holding her, consoling her, the entire time, never leaving her once until the ambulance arrived, whispering to her reassuringly, “Help is on the way”.
Kitty was loaded up into the ambulance, which started making its way towards Queens General Hospital. It was all for nought though. Kitty had been stabbed 13 times, and it was all too much. Kitty Genovese, at only 28 years old, passed away in the back of the ambulance before she could arrive at the hospital, and she was buried three days later in Lakeview Cemetery in New Canaan, Connecticut, where her family now lived.
The Man in the Dark
To say the investigation wasn’t off to a good start is an understatement. The police questioned a number of people in the area, but only two other people besides Robert and Sophia came forward. One man named Karl Ross admitted that, instead of calling for the police first thing, he called his friends for advice on what to do before actually calling the authorities. He’d been intoxicated that night and he’d opened his door to see what all the ruckus was about.
Ross actually saw the killer plunge his knife down into her before quickly retreating into his apartment and shutting the door, scared stiff. His quote on the whole matter? “I didn’t want to get involved.”
Mary was also questioned by Detective Mitchell Sang at 7 am, mere hours after the attack. She was clearly heartbroken over the death of her girlfriend, the woman she wanted to spend all her life with. It didn’t take long for the police to realize that she wasn’t a suspect, that she had no involvement whatsoever with the death of Kitty. You know what they did do though?
Kept her in questioning and grilled her for 6 hours straight. Specifically, it was two homicide detectives, John Carroll and Jerry Burns, who conducted this specific line of questioning. On what you may be asking? Why, about her relationship with Kitty, what else?
Because the past was the worst and prejudice against gay people is stupid.
It didn’t take long though before the killer was captured. 6 days after the attack and Kitty’s death, a man by the name of Raoul Cleary noticed another man removing a television from the back of one of his neighbor’s vehicles in the Queens neighborhood of Ozone Park. Suspicious, Cleary confronted the man, a short and slender African American man with a thin face. Sound familiar?
This was 29-year-old Winston Mosely, a married man with three children and no criminal record at that time to speak of. He was from Ozone Park, he was a local, and worked at Remington Rand as a tab operator, preparing the punched cards used at that time mainly for data input for digital computers. Mosely told Cleary that he was a mover, that the owner of the house was moving and he was simply doing his job.
Cleary didn’t buy it though, Mosely was a local so Cleary would have known of him already, and he would have known Mosely was no mover. And so Cleary went to consult another neighbor named Jack Brown who confirmed that Mosely was speaking nonsense. Thinking fast, Cleary called the police while Brown disabled Mosely’s car to keep him from getting away.
The police arrived soon enough, and they took note of Mosely’s vehicle, a white Chevrolet Corvair. A car of similar make and color was reported by some of the witnesses to have been spotted in the area, specifically driving off and then quickly returning, within a 10-minute time frame, and when he returned he was wearing a dark, wide-brimmed hat. Mosely’s car was searched, the television was found, and Winston Mosely was arrested for suspected robbery, and was taken in for questioning.
It’s right about now that we’d expect the usual in situations like this, yes? Mosely would deny it, he’d cry for his innocence and freedom, and we’d move from there, right? Well…actually no, not in this case. Winston Mosely willingly confessed to the murder of Kitty Genovese…as well as the murder of two other women that the police were investigating at the time.
The first 15-year-old Barbara Kralik. She’d been murdered the previous June in her parents’ Springfield Gardens home, and the second was Annie Mae Johnson who had been shot and burned to death in her apartment in South Ozone Park a few weeks earlier. He also admitted to between 30 and 40 burglaries around that same time.
Detectives Carroll and Sang were immediately contacted and they came to question Mosely personally. They spoke with him about that night, and he didn’t hold back. When asked about why he attacked and killed Kitty, Mosely minced no words.
He simply said that his goal was “to kill a woman,” and that night he was determined to do it. His wife was a nurse and she worked the night shift, so he wasn’t worried about being caught. He was stalking the streets, keeping an eye out for any and all victims.
He simply wanted to murder a woman, he didn’t care who she might be, and that’s when he spotted Kitty. Deciding she was the one, he followed her home, stabbed her twice, retreated only to come back minutes later, sexually assaulted her, stabbed her some more, stole what little money she had on hand, and then left, heading home for the night to get some sleep. And when asked why that was, he stated that he preferred to kill women because “they were easier and didn’t fight back.”
What a monster, what a psycho.
Winston Mosely was arrested and charged with the murder of Kitty Genovese, his trial began on June 8th, 1964, and was presided over by Judge J. Irwin Shapiro. He wasn’t charged with the other two murders he had admitted to though, mostly because another man, Alvin Mitchell, had also confessed to the murder of Barbara Kralik.
Mosely pleaded not guilty at first, despite having admitted to everything and going into great detail about the whole thing, but that soon changed. At his lawyers’ insistence, his plea was changed to not guilty by reason of insanity. Even then, when the jury heard how he killed her, why he did what he did, and the utter lack of empathy, remorse, or sadness in his voice, he never stood a chance.
On June 11th, 1964, only three days after the trial had begun, the judge and jury had heard enough. Winston Mosely was found guilty as sin, and 4 days later on June 15th, he was sentenced to death. Some in attendance were over the moon with this sentence, so much so that they even applauded and cheered in the courtroom.
Mosely though? He simply stood there, not moving, not speaking, showing no emotion on his face at all.
In response to the horrid things he had done and the total lack of remorse throughout the trial and even his death sentence, Judge Shapiro had no sympathies for Mosely: “I don’t believe in capital punishment, but when I see a monster like this, I wouldn’t hesitate to pull the switch myself.” After the trial, Mosely even appeared on June 23, 1964 as a defense witness in the trial of Alvin Mitchell for the murder of Barbara Kralik, after being granted immunity from prosecution of course. It did lead to a hung jury, but a second trial was ordered, and Mitchell was convicted despite Mosely’s testimony.
Mosely stayed on death row for a few years, but that all changed on June 1st, 1967. That day, the New York Court of Appeals found that Moseley should have been able to argue that he was medically insane at the sentencing hearing when the trial court found that he had been legally sane. Because of this, his sentence was reduced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. Yes, really.
Jailbird Mosely
It only took less than a year before things went tits up when it came to Mosley. On March 18th, 1968, Mosely was taken to Meyer Memorial Hospital in Buffalo, New York after he had injured himself while in prison. They got him all patched up and were on their way back to the prison…when he made his move.
Knocking down the transporting correctional officer, Mosely stole his weapon, jumped from the vehicle, and escaped. From there, he fled to a nearby house owned by Mr. and Mrs. Matthew Kulaga.
Thankfully for them, they weren’t at home at the time, and he stayed undetected for three whole days. Then, on March 21st, the Kulagas came home. They simply wanted to check in on the house, no fuss, no muss, but they instead ran right into Winston Mosely.
He bound and gagged the both of them, held them hostage for over an hour, and sexually violated Mrs. Kulaga. Afterwards, Mosely took their vehicle and left.
From there, he traveled to Grand Island, an island town in Erie County, New York. There he broke into another house, held the mother and daughter who lived there hostage for two hours, and let them go unharmed before surrendering to the police shortly afterwards. Just another example of escaped prisoners being right back into prison shortly after escaping. Charged with escape and kidnapping, Mosely pleaded guilty and was given two additional 15-year sentences to run concurrently with his life sentence.
Things were quiet for a couple of years when it came to Mosely. No incidents, no news, and nothing much going on…until 1971. On September 9, 1971, all hell broke loose and for 4 days straight, the prison was locked in a state of chaos with the Attica Prison riot. That’s an entirely different story, but let’s just say that it was a clusterfuck where in the end, 33 inmates and 10 correctional officers and employees were dead.
Mosely was a part of the chaos, but he did survive the ordeal. Hell, he even went on to obtain a Bachelor of Arts in sociology in prison from Niagara University.
Now with that said, I’m all for rehabilitation, I’m all for wanting to better yourself even from behind bars…but for me, that also requires you to have a soul, which Mosely clearly lacked. You see, in 1984, Winston Mosely became eligible for parole for the first time. Knowing what you know about this waste of skin, what do you think he told the parole board?
Well, how about literally saying that he was a victim in all this too because he was made to stay in prison for what he did?: “For a victim outside, it’s a one-time or one-hour or one-minute affair, but for the person who’s caught, it’s forever.” Or how about this? How about him claiming that he hadn’t originally intended to kill and rape Kitty, that it was simply a mugging gone wrong and that, “people do kill people when they mug them sometimes.”
Needless to say, Mosely didn’t receive parole that day. Or any other day for that matter. Year after year he continued to try and get let out, and year after year he was denied, showing no remorse or empathy for his actions at any time.
He got all the way up to attempt number 18 in November 2015 but was denied once again. Winston Mosely, age 81, died in prison on March 28, 2016, having served 52 years in prison, making him one of the longest-serving inmates in the New York State prison system.
And with that, we have the end of the story as it pertains to the crime itself. As for what came about afterwards and because of it? We’ll get to that in a moment. However, for a little bit, I want to hand the reins over to our resident basement lawyer and good friend Liam to speak on the legality of everything that went down that night as it pertains to the neighbors. Are they responsible for what happened to Kitty? Could they be charged for letting it happen? Well, let’s find out.
Liam’s Legal Corner
Hello all! It is I, Liam, one of the basement’s many definitely not entrapped writers, who just so also happens to be a lawyer in England & Wales currently completing my PhD in law. Matt has summoned me here today and made the mistake that many people make when speaking to a lawyer…. he asked me a question. You see, Matt asked me whether the people who heard the attack on Kitty Genovese took place but did nothing to save her could be held responsible in any way.
That is where Matt has learnt the cardinal rule, lawyers are incapable of saying yes or no. Instead, I must resort to the age-old statement, the statement used in ancient Babylon in response to the code of Hammurabi, ‘it depends.’
So, now take a walk with me through the legal discussion on when and how inaction can be criminal and a discussion of whether it should be. Remember though, all I aim to do here is tell you what the law is and introduce you to the debates surrounding it, your opinion should be one you come to, not one I tell you. I will also mention before I begin that I am an English & Welsh lawyer, not an American lawyer, so the law I will speak about here will be English & Welsh law. However, there are major similarities between the two regimes and I will cover the major difference at the end.
First, let’s pretend you’re all in one of the classes I teach. I am going to give you a scenario, and in this scenario I want you to keep two questions in mind: first, is Jeremy guilty of a crime (now I know you aren’t lawyers but just make your best guess); second, should Jeremy be guilty of a crime? After the main scenario, I am going to give you ten different modifiers and ask if any of those modifiers change your answers at all. And as a bonus note, if any of you are considering going to law school, these are the exact sort of questions you’ll be asked, although the examined ones won’t ask whether the suspect should be guilty, just whether they are.
Tobias is a 22-year-old man, he’s at a public swimming pool with around 100 other people in attendance. Late in the evening Tobias comes into difficulty in the water and begins to flail around, he then drowns and dies. It is later discovered that Jeremy, another individual who was at the swimming pool saw Tobias come into difficulty and did nothing to either help Tobias or summon the emergency services. Is Jeremy guilty of a crime and should he be so?
Now, you’ve answered the easy version but when these situations happen in the real world they can get a lot more complex, so let’s shake it up a bit. In the first modifier let’s say that Tobias wasn’t a 22-year-old adult, let’s say he’s a six-year-old child. Would this change either answer?
In the second modifier let’s say that Jeremy wasn’t just your normal onlooker but instead the registered lifeguard currently on duty that day. Would this change your answer? In the third modifier let’s say that Jeremy again wasn’t a normal onlooker but instead a police officer, who at the time was on duty.
Would that change your answer? Also, would it change again if he was a police officer but not on duty? In the fourth slash fifth modifier let’s say that Jeremy still wasn’t a normal onlooker but instead a friend of Tobias, aware that Tobias had difficulties swimming and yet had nonetheless convinced Tobias to get into the water and swim, with the full knowledge that harm might arise.
Would this change your answer? In the sixth modifier, Jeremy is just a normal guy, but he can’t swim, would this change your answer? In the seventh modifier, Jeremy is a mostly normal guy but also a prick, he’s been regularly attending the swimming pool for the last 4 months hoping somebody would drown so that he could record their drowning and upload it to 4chan.
He noticed Tobias beginning to drown and has admitted since then to taking delight in watching him die. Would this change your answer? In the eighth and penultimate modifier, Tobias is both 6 years old and Jeremy’s son, the rest of the scenario plays as normal, meaning Jeremy notices Tobias beginning to drown but does nothing.
Would this change your answer, and would it change again if instead, Jeremy didn’t notice Tobias beginning to drown? Finally, let’s change the scenario significantly. Tobias is a 13-year-old kid, he’s jumped several fences and entered a rapid and dangerous stretch of water in a river, there are several signs stating that nobody should enter the river due to the risk of bodily injury.
Jeremy is a security guard hired to ensure nobody jumps the fences, he notices Tobias jump the fence but doesn’t get there in time to stop him. He sees Tobias begin to drown but does not enter the water himself, afraid that he might drown. Would any of these facts change your answer?
So, that’s just some of the ways in which a scenario like this that happens in real life can get complicated since every single one of those above ten modifiers was drawn from a real-life analogous case that made law. Not all of those cases involved a swimming pool, but the legal question asked in each scenario is virtually identical to those asked in the real cases.
So, how do you think you did in the law exam? Well don’t hold your breath for an answer, I have included the answers on the legality of each scenario at the end of this section. First though, so you can better understand why the law has taken the stance in this area that it has, you must first understand a little bit of legal philosophy. So, let’s start with a nice simple question which is sure to cause no controversy whatsoever, why do we punish criminals?
There are a few different answers you can give that question depending on how philosopher-y you want to be. You could give a nice simplistic answer, that we have criminal laws as without them society simply fails to exist. You could give a broader answer, speaking over the five generally accepted aims of criminal punishment: retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation and reparations.
Or you could say what I’m going to say: we punish criminals because certain people in society are fucksickles and we don’t like fucksickles and people are simply unwilling to operate in a society where fucksickles are prevalent and unpunished. I call this the fucksickles theory – unfortunately, no academic journal has been willing to take me up on it yet. In fucksickles theory, the second consideration of when to punish is also answered, the answer being that there is a level of fucksicality that society is willing to accept and that any behavior below that line won’t be punished but any behavior above that line should be punished.
So, in that sense, we can see how the ultimate aim of the criminal law is to punish those who do wrong but only those who do an act so wrong as to be unbearable in a civilized society. That is why we punish but that’s not the only philosophy you need to know. As well as asking why we punish we need to ask when we punish, which on the face of it looks like a very similar question but as with all things philosophy two things that sound the same could not be further apart.
For example, let’s say we have a fucksickles who has failed the fucksicality test and has therefore been accepted as a right bellend. Are we allowed to just hunt them down and dispense justice at the end of a rusty pipe? No.
But why not? Well, if you remember, the core aim of criminal law is to keep society ordered. If we allowed masked vigilantes to go around beating up fucksickles left and right, we wouldn’t be achieving that.
So instead, we add the requirement that if you think somebody is a fucksickles you have to prove that they are a fucksickles in a court of law, generally in front of a very very dumb jury, but that’s a lecture for another day.
As part of that process, we have one primary philosophical requirement. If you allege somebody else is a fucksickles then you must prove that they do not need to prove they are not a fucksickles, the burden of proof is on you. Now, in practice, this means the state needs to prove an individual is guilty of a crime, generally through a local prosecution service such as the CPS or District Attorney’s Office if you’re in ‘Merica.
The reasoning behind this is that: if we are to give out the harshest of all punishments in the criminal law then it is only right that we are virtually certain that an individual found in violation of that law actually did break that law before punishing them. This is the core philosophy behind why the law tends to favor a defendant at trial. Ultimately the use of any level of criminal law is the threat of violence, if you’re given a fine but don’t pay it you go to jail, if you fight back the police fight back, if you fight back with deadly force the police will kill you.
It is this ladder of slippery slope dichotomies that demonstrates how any criminal infraction can lead to state violence, this is why we ask for such high a standard.
Okay, but is there a reason you’ve interrupted our episode for a lecture on criminal philosophy 101? Ultimately, when I ask you whether an act should be legally wrong, I am not asking you whether that act is morally wrong. There is a big difference there.
Generally, a morally wrong act can be taken as an act an individual does not think they should do. A legally wrong act, as we have covered, is an act that not only should be made wrong to protect society’s functioning but should only be made wrong if such is not too onerous on individuals, underpinned by the above philosophies. I tell you these philosophies both so you can think about whether you agree with them and develop your own theories and so you can understand a bit better why the law sometimes does things in a very strange way.
So, without further ado, let’s get to the main event and explain the legalities of the above set scenarios. As a reminder, I have included the base scenario here as well just for anyone who forgot it: Tobias is a 22-year-old man, he’s at a public swimming pool with around 100 other people in attendance. Late in the evening Tobias comes into difficulty in the water and begins to flail around, he then drowns and dies.
It is later discovered that Jeremy, another individual who was at the swimming pool saw Tobias come into difficulty and did nothing to either help Tobias or summon the emergency services. Is Jeremy guilty of a crime and should he be so?
As a starting point on whether a crime has been committed, we go to one of the basest statements of the law, that only criminal acts are to be punished not omissions. This base rule means that a failure to act, as a presumption, will never give rise to criminal liability. This rule mostly comes from that second philosophical tendency I mentioned, on the grounds that punishing inaction opens up the floodgates to masses of prosecutions.
At which point you may be left scratching your heads wondering why I just took 2000 words to tell you that no, no criminal liability can arise, but that’s where we get into why studying law is a pain in the ass. There is an exception to everything.
You see, the base rule is that an omission can never lead to criminal liability, the exception is unless there is a pre-existing duty of care between the person who failed to act and the victim. Every single one of those exceptions I mentioned are an example of a duty of care, I’ll go through these now briefly to show you what I mean.
Let’s start with modifier 1, this is the modifier that changed Tobias into a 6-year-old child. On this there is no legal duty, there is no requirement in law that any adult looks out for any child near that adult solely for the fact that the victim is a child. As much as socially we may expect adults to look out for children there is no punishment to those who don’t, unless one of the other duties applies.
Modifier 2 made Jeremy into more than just an observer and into the registered lifeguard on duty that day. This is where we find our first duty of care. You see, as he is the registered lifeguard, he has undertaken a contractual duty with the owners of the pool to look after those in attendance, it is that contractual duty that the law would say requires him to act. Meaning if a lifeguard were to spot an individual in their pool drowning and just refuse to act, they could be found criminally responsible.
Modifier 3 made Jeremy instead into a police officer, asking whether the answer would change if he was on or off duty. At face value this appears to be identical to modifier 2, in so far as Jeremy would have a contractual duty, this is right for when he’s on duty but not for when he’s off. It’s long been a principle of English & Welsh law that a police officer, even when off duty, has a duty to protect those around them.
This is because police officers enjoy one or two extra rights over that of an ordinary citizen, it is in that sense in the words of Spiderman’s Uncle Ben that with a little bit of power and a shit salary comes responsibility… or however it goes. I will note here though that this is a more controversial part of the law and differs from state to state when you get to the US.
Modifier 5 makes Jeremy into a friend of Tobias who is aware that Tobias had difficulties swimming and convinces him to enter the water. In law, under this scenario Jeremy would possibly be guilty. The reason is that when a defendant creates a dangerous circumstance, which they are aware is dangerous and does nothing to save an individual who is caught up in that circumstance they are responsible. This is a bit hard to imagine when it comes to the pool so instead think of a man who falls asleep on a sofa with a lit cigarette in their hand.
The cigarette sets fire to some crumpled-up paper, the man wakes up, acknowledges the fledgling fire and rather than calling the fire service or stamping it out just walks away and goes to sleep again. That man then becomes responsible for any harm that fire causes. (And yes, that is a real fucking case, what a fucksickle)
Modifier 6 makes Jeremy into somebody who can’t swim, this is more a thing I wanted on your minds. You see, if any of the other modifiers applied that would have required Jeremy to act, the mere fact that acting would have put him in danger, in most jurisdictions, would have been absolutely no defense. Another way to imagine this is a police officer who doesn’t break up a fight because the belligerents have knives and they don’t have a weapon, in that circumstance the law would still require the police officer to act and hold them responsible if they do not.
Modifier 7 is one I am going to leave to the end, it’s the modifier where Jeremy is a sadistic 4chan user who has been attending the pool regularly hoping to see somebody drown.
Modifier 8 is where Jeremy becomes Tobias’ dad and Tobias becomes a 6-year-old again. In this scenario Jeremy would again probably be liable, the reason being that parents have a general duty of care to look after their children. It should also be noted that this duty is extended to anyway in the loco parentis, which is a fancy lawyer way of saying anyone who acts in a generally protective way over a child and includes teachers, babysitters and doctors.
Finally, we get to modifier 9, this is the one that changed Tobias into a trespasser who jumped a fence into the property. I included this one as this is an example of how the vast majority of omission cases go down, I won’t provide legal analysis here though as it’s also the scenario the vast majority of jurisdictions differ on. In English & Welsh law I would say that Jeremy probably doesn’t have the best shot at being found not guilty but it’s far from cut and dry.
Now, let’s take a look back at modifier 7, the one where I think undeniably Jeremy is a fucksickle, but should he be guilty of a crime? Yes, he wished for somebody to die and was ready for someone to die but there is no insinuation he played any part in causing the death or had any relation to the death. This is a scenario I wanted to include because it demonstrates a lesson, the law doesn’t just punish somebody because they are a prick, they have to have a demonstrable impact on the life of others to warrant punishment. Undoubtedly in my mind, the Jeremy of modifier 7 would not be found guilty.
So, now we’ve covered the law I have only a few more questions for you and a small look at foreign law. First, what do you think of it? Is it fair that somebody can just sit there and watch a crime take place, and have no duty to intervene or call the police? Should the law impose a duty to protect your neighbors?
Would it be fair to imprison somebody who heard or witnessed a crime happening and was too scared to act? If you said yes, then I ask you how you would act in one of those scenarios and if you answered that question, I ask how you know. In truth nobody knows how they are going to perform in a trauma scenario until they are in it, that is one of the primary reasons most jurisdictions don’t impose a duty and it’s something I do want to bring to your mind before we get to the final point.
As a final point I do want to make you all aware that even though in England & Wales there is no general duty of care and in New York, where the case this episode is about happened, there is also no duty of care there are several countries where there appears to be a duty of care. These include France, parts of Canada and the US states of Minnesota, Louisiana, Rhode Island and Vermont among dozens of other countries worldwide. In any of these jurisdictions if you witness a crime happening and do nothing to help the victim or don’t notify the police (defending on the exact law) you can face criminal sanctions. Is that fair?
So, with that I am going to hand it back to Matt, but be sure to answer those questions in the comments below, I’ll be sure to come and read them. Finally answer this additional question, are you certain that if you heard Kitty Genovese being murdered you would call for help, or would you just sit by and wait for that terrifying noise to go away, telling yourself that it’s all going to be okay and that somebody else will help?
The Bystander Effect and Aftermath
And now back to our regularly scheduled programming! So overall, this seems like a pretty short and straightforward case, right? Hell, Liam just went into great detail for us on if you are criminally liable if you don’t help someone that you hear is in trouble. But there’s a reason this case has been stuck in the public consciousness for over 50 years, and why it is taught in detail in criminal justice courses.
I first need to specify that the case originally didn’t get much attention. It was simply another murder in the Big Apple, no more, no less. But then Abraham Michael “A.M.”
Rosenthal, metropolitan editor of the New York Times got a hold of the story. He was having lunch with New York City Police Commissioner Michael J. Murphy and was told about the case.
To say he ran with it is an understatement. On March 27, 1964, two weeks after the murder, the Times published an article, written by Martin Gansberg and overseen by Rosenthal. The headline?
“37 Who Saw Murder Didn’t Call the Police,” and right underneath, “Apathy at Stabbing of Queens Woman Shocks Inspector.” It went into great detail about the travesty that befell Kitty, how she was stalked and brutally attacked by Mosely, how she cried out for help, and how nobody of 37 witnesses came to rescue her. Originally it was meant to claim that 38 people had witnessed the attack, and the headline was later changed in future reprints.
In an excerpt from the original article, it read: “For more than half an hour 38 respectable, law‐abiding citizens in Queens watched a killer stalk and stab a woman in three separate attacks in Kew Gardens… Not one person telephoned the police during the assault; one witness called after the woman was dead.” The public was mortified. How could all those people have heard or even seen what was happening, and did nothing? Sure, they couldn’t be held criminally responsible, a police spokesperson even confirmed that at the time, but morally?
People simply couldn’t believe it.
In the wake of the article, the story of Kitty’s death and the silent witnesses became a hot topic for a while. A follow-up article to the original was soon published, examining why witnesses wouldn’t help. Rosenthal even wrote a book on the subject, entitled Thirty-eight Witnesses: The Kitty Genovese Case. And as stated, it’s still talked about and even studied today. Because of it, a new theory cropped up, namely by psychologists Bibb Latané and John Darley. The bystander effect, also known as Kitty Genovese syndrome, suggests that people in a crowd are less likely to interfere in a crime than a single eyewitness. The theory began to be taught in schools, in psychology and criminal law courses, and it still is to this day. Kitty’s case is itself taught in schools, with psychologists suggesting that it was more useful to point to a single person in a crowd and demand help than to ask the entire crowd for assistance. The theory is sound, and it makes sense. Hell, to be fair, I think we all have come into contact with situations where this even applies to us. How many times have we seen something going down while out and about, or while in our neighborhoods, and just walked away? Not our problem, someone else will deal with it. Would you or I do any different? Or would we feel more inclined to help if we were singled out and asked directly for aid? It’s more common than I think we even realize.
Another perfect example of this? Ten years later on December 25, 1974, the same thing happened again, and in the exact same location nonetheless. This was the case of 25-year-old model Sandra Zahler. Early Christmas morning at 3:20 am in an apartment that overlooked the same site where Kitty was killed, she was beaten to death.
She was heard screaming in pain and calling out for help by multiple people in the apartments around hers…but no one came, and no one did anything, let alone call the police. Hell, her body wasn’t even found until the next day at 2 in the afternoon when 24-year-old George Boguslaw, Sandra’s boyfriend, let himself into her apartment.
It makes sense, it fits well, but did the bystander effect, in the case that brought it to light in the first place even come into effect? Apparently not. After Winston Mosely passed away, it was revealed that the Times had grossly exaggerated the number of people who had heard or seen Kitty getting attacked.
And of those that did, did try to intervene. Robert Mozer? He cried out to Mosely to leave Kitty alone.
Moseley fled and Kitty moved out of sight, after which Robert didn’t know what happened, let alone that Mosely came back. Sophia Farrar? She heard Kitty being attacked, and she rushed down to help without even knowing what was happening or who was being attacked even.
As we know, she stayed with Kitty until the moment the police and ambulance arrived, saying that she would be ok. And any other person who heard? They thought it was a domestic dispute, something normal, something mundane, and if they had known the extent of it, they might have intervened sooner.
Hell, Kitty’s own brother, Bill Genovese, went to investigate for the documentary The Witness. He caught up with “A.M.” Rosenthal, he asked him about it all, and when the topic of the 38 silent witnesses came up, Rosenthal had this to say: “I can’t swear to God that there were 38 people. Some people say there were more, some people say there were less. What was true: People all over the world were affected by it. Did it do anything? You bet your eye it did something. And I’m glad it did.” Well, he’s certainly not wrong, but a journalist exaggerating to sell a story? Shock horror.
And in the end, to this day, this has been added to the bottom of the original story: “Editors’ Note: Oct. 12, 2016. Later reporting by The Times and others has called into question significant elements of this account.” Since then, many people understand that while it wasn’t enough to save her life, Kitty did have people on her side, looking out for her.
Could they have done more? Of course, but it wasn’t a gross display of mass ignorance that cost Kitty her life, but the deplorable acts and demented urges of a sick man in a wide-brimmed hat. And hell, if there’s one other good thing that came out of this whole affair, it was that this was one of, if not the case, that made possible the creation of 911 here in the States. And the rest is history as they say, with countless lives saved as a result!
Wrap-Up
And with that, I think our story has come to an end. It’s a sad one, one that didn’t need to happen, and one that indeed could have been stopped had more people acted quick enough. I’ll admit, I’ve known about this case for a very long time, it just took me forever to get to it. It’s fascinating, it’s heartbreaking, and the ramifications are still being felt to this day. 911, the bystander effect, these things are in use today, and they’re being used to help so many people so they don’t end up like Kitty did in the end, on the wrong side of a madman’s blade.
A sick man, an evil man, Winston Mosely was a man who simply wanted to kill for the feeling of killing. He went out hunting that night, he wanted to kill someone, a woman preferably, simply because it made him feel good, strong, and like he was in control. We don’t know much of anything about his past, at least not that I found, but regardless, it’s no excuse. He was a monster, one that felt no empathy or remorse, and he died behind bars, where he deserved to be.
With that, we simply remember Kitty. Catherine Genovese was a bright and passionate young lady, she had a good future ahead of her, with a family who loved her, a girlfriend who adored her, and a dream that was almost a reality. The darkness took all of that away from her, but even today she is remembered.
It’s a tragedy that she had to die, but her impact resounded throughout the world even now. And in the end, it’s good to know she wasn’t totally alone. It wasn’t 38 people simply ignoring her, letting her be violated and killed.
It was misunderstandings of the situation, it was the lack of a direct line to the authorities and the evil actions of an evil man. Robert Mozer called out to help her, and Sophia Farrar was there with her all the way until the end, soothing her through the pain until it was over. To them, even though they’re already gone from this world, I say thank you.
Rest in peace Kitty, we’ll always remember you.
Dismembered Appendices
Heyo! It’s me Liam again! So, I really like talking about criminal law and this area of criminal law is particularly fascinating to me so there’s something else I wanted to mention but couldn’t sneak in, so instead I put it here. As well as failure to act laws there are also things called ‘Good Samaritan’ laws.
These are laws protecting those who try to act but fail in their attempt. For example, a random person saw Tobias drowning and threw a rope out to catch him, the rope goes around Tobias’ neck, and he drowns. Could that random good Samaritan be punished or sued by Tobias’ family? Not in a country with a Good Samaritan law.
However, many countries don’t have Good Samaritan laws, including England & Wales. Meaning if you ever see somebody choking, you might be better off just watching and not putting you in potential liability. But please remember that is not legal advice.
Key Takeaways
- The New York Times exaggerated that 38 witnesses watched Kitty Genovese’s murder without acting; later reporting revealed fewer people heard or saw the attack, and some did try to help.
- Neighbor Robert Mozer shouted at attacker Winston Mosely to leave Kitty alone, causing him to flee initially; neighbor Sophia Farrar rushed to Kitty and stayed with her until ambulance arrived.
- The bystander effect theory originated from this case, suggesting people in crowds are less likely to intervene than single witnesses, though the actual events didn’t demonstrate this phenomenon.
- Winston Mosely confessed to killing Kitty and two other women, was sentenced to death in 1964, but this was reduced to life imprisonment; he died in prison in 2016 after 52 years.
- The Kitty Genovese case helped lead to creation of the 911 emergency system in the United States, saving countless lives since its implementation.
Dana Ortiz covers prosecutorial mechanics, evidentiary procedure, and how investigations unwind decades after the original case file went cold.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who was Kitty Genovese and what was she known for?
Catherine Susan Genovese, known as Kitty, was born on July 7, 1935, in Brooklyn, New York. She was the eldest of five children, excelled in English and music in high school, and was elected ‘Class Cut-Up.’ She worked as a bartender and dreamed of opening an Italian restaurant. She is known for being the victim of a notorious 1964 murder in Kew Gardens, Queens, which became famous due to initial reports that 38 witnesses saw or heard the attack but did nothing to help.
What happened to Kitty Genovese on the night of March 13, 1964?
On March 13, 1964, at approximately 3:15 am, Kitty Genovese was attacked by Winston Mosely in the parking lot and hallway of her apartment building in Kew Gardens, Queens. Mosely stabbed her twice initially, returned ten minutes later wearing a wide-brimmed hat, stabbed her 11 more times, sexually assaulted her, and stole $49. The entire attack lasted about 30 minutes. She died in the ambulance before reaching Queens General Hospital at age 28.
Who was Winston Mosely and what was his motive for killing Kitty Genovese?
Winston Mosely was a 29-year-old married father of three with no prior criminal record who worked as a tab operator at Remington Rand. He confessed to killing Kitty Genovese, stating his goal was simply ‘to kill a woman.’ He explained that he preferred to kill women because ‘they were easier and didn’t fight back.’ He was hunting for any female victim that night when he spotted Kitty. He also confessed to two other murders and 30-40 burglaries.
What was the original New York Times reporting about the Kitty Genovese case?
On March 27, 1964, the New York Times published an article by Martin Gansberg with the headline ‘37 Who Saw Murder Didn’t Call the Police’ (later changed from an original claim of 38). The article claimed that 37-38 respectable, law-abiding citizens watched the attack over more than half an hour and that not one person telephoned police during the assault. This reporting, overseen by metropolitan editor A.M. Rosenthal, created widespread public outrage about bystander apathy.
What is the bystander effect and how is it connected to the Kitty Genovese case?
The bystander effect, also known as Kitty Genovese syndrome, is a theory developed by psychologists Bibb Latané and John Darley suggesting that people in a crowd are less likely to interfere in a crime than a single eyewitness. The theory became widely taught in psychology and criminal law courses. However, later reporting revealed that the original Times account was grossly exaggerated, and the bystander effect may not have actually applied in Kitty’s case since some neighbors did try to help or were unaware of the severity of what was happening.
What corrections were made to the original story about witnesses to Kitty Genovese’s murder?
Later reporting revealed significant exaggerations in the original New York Times account. The number of witnesses was inflated, and it was found that some people did try to help: Robert Mozer yelled ‘Let that girl alone!’ causing Mosely to initially flee; Sophia Farrar rushed to Kitty’s side and stayed with her until the ambulance arrived; and other neighbors who heard something thought it was a domestic dispute. In 2016, the Times added an editor’s note stating that ‘Later reporting by The Times and others has called into question significant elements of this account.‘
What was Winston Mosely’s legal fate after being convicted of murdering Kitty Genovese?
Winston Mosely was arrested six days after the murder. He initially pleaded not guilty but changed to not guilty by reason of insanity at his lawyers’ insistence. On June 11, 1964, he was found guilty, and on June 15, 1964, Judge J. Irwin Shapiro sentenced him to death.
However, on June 1, 1967, the New York Court of Appeals reduced his sentence to life imprisonment with possibility of parole because he should have been able to argue medical insanity at sentencing. He escaped in 1968 and committed additional crimes, receiving two more 15-year sentences. He was denied parole 18 times and died in prison on March 28, 2016, at age 81, having served 52 years.
Could the neighbors who heard or witnessed Kitty Genovese’s attack be held criminally responsible for not helping?
Under New York law and English & Welsh law discussed in the article, there is no general legal duty to intervene or call police when witnessing a crime. The base rule is that only criminal acts are punished, not omissions (failures to act), unless there is a pre-existing duty of care (such as being a lifeguard, police officer on duty, parent, or someone who created the dangerous situation). A police spokesperson at the time confirmed the neighbors could not be held criminally responsible. However, some jurisdictions including France, parts of Canada, and US states like Minnesota, Louisiana, Rhode Island, and Vermont do impose duties to act.
What positive outcome resulted from the Kitty Genovese case?
The Kitty Genovese case was instrumental in making possible the creation of the 911 emergency telephone system in the United States. The lack of a direct line to authorities was one factor in the delayed response to Kitty’s attack. The article notes that ‘countless lives saved as a result’ of this development.
What was Kitty Genovese’s relationship with Mary Ann Zielonko?
Kitty Genovese and Mary Ann Zielonko met on March 13, 1963, at Swing Rendezvous, an underground lesbian bar in Greenwich Village. They fell in love immediately, became a couple, and moved in together to an apartment in Kew Gardens, Queens. Due to stigma against gay and lesbian couples at the time, they had to pretend to be roommates. They were celebrating their one-year anniversary on the night Kitty was murdered.
Mary Ann was questioned by police for six hours about her relationship with Kitty, not because she was a suspect but due to prejudice against gay people.
Sources
- Original Casual Criminalist video: The Tragedy of Kitty Genovese: The Silent Witnesses
- Hero image source by Tdorante10 / openverse, by-sa.
