Kitty Genovese: A True Account of a Public Murder and Its Private Consequences

by Pelonero, Catherine

  “It’s the back of the building,” Frost replied.

  “Now could you see the girl up to this point before she turned the corner where the coffee shop is?”

  “That’s right. She disappeared around this corner and then I didn’t see her anymore.”

  “Now did you see the man after he ran from the location that you indicated in front of the store? Did you see him after that?”

  “Only going up Austin Street beyond the Virginian (sic). On that same street as the Virginian (sic) Apartment, which is the railroad side of Austin.”

  “Did you see him walking or riding or what?”

  “Running.”

  “And you didn’t see him after that?”

  “No, sir.”

  Sidney Sparrow did not cross-examine Irene Frost. Samuel Koshkin, resident of the West Virginia Apartments at 82-40 Austin Street, was called to the stand.

  “Mr. Koshkin,” Frank Cacciatore asked, “on the early morning of March the 13th of 1964, did you hear anything?”

  “Yes. I heard a woman screaming.”

  “And what did you do then, sir?”

  “I looked out the window facing Austin Street.”

  Judge Shapiro inquired, “You are on the opposite side of the street from where these other witnesses lived? You live on the same side of the street where the bookstore is?”

  “That’s right,” Koshkin answered.

  After establishing the location of Koshkin’s apartment building—past the railroad parking lot, opposite the Tudor building—Frank Cacciatore asked, “Your apartment is on what floor?”

  “Sixth,” Koshkin replied.

  “And you have windows facing Austin Street, is that so?”

  “That’s right.”

  “You have a window facing the parking lot, and you have a window facing the railroad? So there’s three sides really?”

  “Yes.”

  “What window did you look out of?”

  “The Austin Street window, the bus stop.”

  “There’s a bus stop immediately below?”

  “That’s right.”

  “Tell us what you saw, sir?”

  “I looked out the window and I saw a man hurrying to his car, a little car parked under my window. It was a compact, light-colored compact.”

  “And did you see him get in?”

  “Yes, I did.”

  “What else did you see him do?”

  “Well, I thought he would pull out—”

  “Not what you thought,” the judge interrupted. “Tell us what you saw him do.”

  “He backed into 82nd Road.”

  “Did you see the car then after he backed into 82nd Road?” Judge Shapiro asked.

  “No,” Koshkin answered. Using the chart prepared by the police engineer, he indicated the path Moseley’s car had taken that night.

  “All right now,” Cacciatore said, “did you continue watching from that window?”

  “I did.”

  “Will you tell us, please, did you observe anything else after you lost sight of the car?”

  “The man came back again, about five minutes later I’d say, and was looking—”

  “Did he appear to be the same person?”

  “Yes, he did.”

  “Can you describe the clothing as you saw it?”

  “He wore a three-quarter-length coat. When he came back he wore a fedora.”

  “What did he have on the first time?” Cacciatore asked.

  “The first time he had on a knitted cap when he got into the car.”

  “And then he was wearing a fedora?”

  “A fedora when he came back.”

  Cacciatore wanted this detail firmly in the minds of the jury. Moseley had changed hats between attacks, from a stocking cap to a brimmed hat that might better disguise his features. For the prosecution, this attempt to hide his identity clearly indicated that Winston Moseley knew that what he was doing was wrong.

  Cacciatore asked Samuel Koshkin what Moseley had done when he returned.

  “He was looking around the area.”

  “When you say looking around, just where did he look?”

  “He looked in the doorway near the drugstore. And then he went to the railroad station and looked in there.”

  Cacciatore entered another photograph into evidence before continuing. He had the witness confirm locations, giving the jury a step-by-step visual of Moseley’s movements. The prosecutor built a meticulous reenactment of the crime. He wanted the jury to know exactly what Winston Moseley had done that night, and how.

  “Now, you said that you saw him near the drugstore,” Cacciatore proceeded, “and you saw him go where then after that?”

  “Towards the back of the building,” Koshkin answered.

  “The corner of that is the coffee shop, is that right? What do they call that, a beatnik—”

  “An espresso house.”

  “Espresso house. Then you said you lost sight of him?”

  “When he went behind the building.”

  “Now before that, did you see him do anything with his hands?”

  “When he came back, he had his hand in his mouth I think. He had his fingers in his mouth, two or three fingers in his mouth.”

  “Now,” Cacciatore said, “on the early morning of March the 19th, were you at the location of Austin Street and the parking lot?”

  “I was,” Koshkin replied. “The police had a man there, handcuffed, and they were looking around the area.”

  “What time was that?” Judge Shapiro asked.

  “4:30 I’d say.”

  “Same morning?”

  “This is March 19th,” Cacciatore cut in. “Six days later.”

  “Six days later,” the witness agreed.

  “Tell us, please, what you saw?” Cacciatore asked.

  “I saw the same man, I thought, looking around, pointing out different places and so forth.”

  This also was important to establish; that Moseley had had the clarity of mind to point out to the police, in detail, exactly where each stage of the crime had occurred.

  Once again—and to the relief of the prosecution—Sparrow declined cross-examination. His defense did not rest on disputing any of the mechanics of the crime, nor on any attempts to transfer ill feeling to the witnesses who had watched events unfold. In this strategy the prosecution and the defense were of the same mind-set, though for starkly different reasons; they wanted the horror focused squarely on the defendant.

  Milkman Edward Fiesler took the stand. Using the chart, he indicated for the jury where he had stopped on Austin Street on the early morning of March 13 to make a delivery at the grocery store that sat next to the corner drugstore.

  “Now, across the street is a building called the Mowbray, isn’t that so?” Cacciatore asked.

  “That’s right,” Fiesler answered.

  “Were there any cars parked along that side of the street?”

  “No cars at all.”

  “Were there any people on that street at all while you were making the delivery?”

  “Just one person I had seen.”

  “Now, where was that person coming from?”

  “Coming from Lefferts Boulevard,” Fiesler answered.

  “And as you saw that person, did you look at him?” Cacciatore asked.

  “Yes, sir.”

  “Was there any lights at that location?”

  “Yes, there was.”

  “Had no trouble looking, right?”

  “No, sir.”

  “Anything obstructing your view?”

  “No.”

  “Now, when you looked, you saw a man, is that so?”

  “That’s right.”

  “Do you see that person in this courtroom?”

  The witness pointed at Winston Moseley. He indicated the direction that Moseley had walked. As for the time, he placed it somewhere between 3:15 and 3:45 a.m., but said he could not be more specific than that, as he had not looked at a
watch.

  The prosecution called Sophie Farrar.

  Wearing a simple suit, she strode confidently down the center aisle of the courtroom and took the witness seat. Prosecutor Frank Cacciatore asked what she had heard during the early morning of March 13.

  “I heard a scream,” Sophie replied.

  “Now, your windows face on Austin Street, is that so?”

  “Yes.”

  “And did you look out the window?”

  “Yes, I did. I didn’t open it. I stood near the window and I looked. I saw nothing, and then I listened and I didn’t hear anything, and I went back to bed,” Sophie said.

  “Sometime later, did something happen?”

  “Yes.”

  “How long—how much later?”

  “Well, not too long, because I wasn’t sleeping. About fifteen minutes, I’d say—approximately. The phone rang.”

  “And after you had that conversation with someone, what did you do?” Cacciatore asked.

  “I ran downstairs. To 82-62 Austin Street.”

  “Is that in the rear of the building?”

  “Yes.”

  “Is there an apartment that goes up?”

  “There are two apartments up there,” Sophie answered.

  “Upstairs.”

  “Yes.”

  “Now, you went to 82-62, and what did you see, please?”

  “I saw Kitty Genovese laying down; she was stretched out in the hall,” Sophie answered. “Her head was toward the door. She was stretched out on her back, and her clothes were all torn, or ripped, and she was all exposed. Her shoes were off, and she—”

  Judge Shapiro interrupted. “All exposed; you mean her private parts were exposed?”

  “Yes, top and bottom,” Sophie answered.

  “Did you notice anything else with respect to her body?” Cacciatore asked.

  “No, I didn’t look that closely.”

  “Did you go up to her?”

  “Yes; oh, definitely.”

  “Was she alive?”

  “Yes, she was.”

  “Did she talk to you?”

  “No, she didn’t,” said Sophie. “She was just moaning. I was talking to her.”

  “Did you notice any blood?”

  “At first I didn’t, until I held her head and I had blood all over my hands. And then she moved, and I saw all the blood from under her back, and then I noticed she had holes in her coat.”

  “Holes in her coat where,” Judge Shapiro asked, “in the back?”

  “Yes,” Sophie replied.

  Frank Cacciatore asked Sophie to confirm that police and an ambulance had then come, and that Kitty had been carried away, still alive, on a stretcher.

  Sidney Sparrow had no questions for Sophie Farrar. The prosecution called Mary Ann Zielonko.

  The only purpose in calling Mary Ann was to have her identify recovered personal items that had belonged to Kitty. Cacciatore first established that Mary Ann had lived with Kitty Genovese at the time of her death. The prosecutors were aware of the relationship between the two women but chose not to reveal it. As Assistant DA Charles Skoller said decades later, “Lesbian relationships weren’t generally accepted in those days, and we didn’t want theirs to jeopardize the outcome of the trial.”

  Mary Ann identified Kitty’s brown wallet that police had found in the bushes behind Moseley’s place of work. Cacciatore entered the wallet into evidence.

  “Now, Miss Zielonko,” Cacciatore continued, “I show you these keys, and I ask you whether you can identify them?”

  “Yes; they’re Kitty’s house keys and car keys.”

  “Where did you see them last, Miss Zielonko? Do you recall the early morning of March 13th when you saw Kitty in the hallway?”

  “I didn’t see Kitty in the hallway,” Mary Ann responded.

  “Oh, you did not? Did you see the keys then?”

  “I think I saw them on the floor.”

  Judge Shapiro interrupted, “I can’t hear you, Miss. If you want to talk to yourself, you might as well get off the witness stand. The jury wants to hear you. Keep your voice up.”

  “I think I saw them on the floor up the hall when I went in,” Mary Ann answered. Frank Cacciatore entered the keys into evidence and mercifully dismissed Mary Ann from the witness stand.

  Homicide Detective John Carroll took the stand and gave an account of how he and his colleagues had found Kitty that morning. After detailing the injuries he had observed on the victim, Frank Cacciatore had Detective Carroll tell the jury of the arrest and interrogation of Winston Moseley. Carroll recounted what Moseley had told them of the killing, citing specific details from his admissions. Cacciatore asked at some length about the statement Moseley had then given to Assistant District Attorney Philip Chetta. Detective Carroll had been present during Chetta’s question and answer session with Moseley. He recalled Moseley reading and then signing the typed statement, which ran six pages. Detectives Carroll and Mitchell Sang had signed as witnesses.

  After the direct examination by the prosecution, Sidney Sparrow did cross-examine this witness.

  “Detective Carroll, at the time that you saw this defendant at the station house it was in the late afternoon or early evening?” Sparrow asked.

  “Approximately 6:00 p.m., sir.”

  “And had you received a communication which led to your coming to the station house some time earlier or just a short while before?” Sparrow probed.

  “Approximately 4:30,” Carroll answered.

  “And at the time that you got there did you notice the physical condition of this defendant?” Carroll responded that he had and Sparrow asked, “Were there any signs of injury or bruise or anything of that nature on him?”

  “No, sir.”

  Sparrow asked if he had struck or in any way inflicted injury on the defendant or if he had seen any other police officer do so. Detective Carroll answered no to both.

  “Did he give these statements to you voluntarily and freely?” Sparrow asked.

  “Yes, he did.”

  “What would you say his demeanor or composure was?”

  “My opinion is that he was rather relieved by it all,” John Carroll answered.

  “Calm and quiet when he told you?”

  “Very calm and very deliberate.”

  “Did he at any time indicate any remorse?” Sparrow asked.

  “I didn’t detect any.”

  “Any compassion for this individual?”

  “I didn’t detect any.”

  “Did he speak of any other killings or acts?”

  “Yes, he did.”

  “And did he tell you about the killing of one Anna Mae Johnson?”

  Frank Cacciatore interrupted. “If Your Honor pleases, I am going to object to this. We are now trying the case against this defendant concerning Catherine Genovese and no other.”

  “Yes,” Judge Shapiro agreed. “Gentlemen and madam of the jury, the case that you are hearing is the accusation returned by the grand jury charging the defendant, Winston Moseley, with committing the crime of Murder in the 1st Degree by having stabbed Catherine Genovese. However, in view of the opening of counsel in which he indicated that the issue of legal insanity as I will define that term to you in my charge will be raised in this case, I will permit counsel to examine this witness on any statements made by the defendant for any bearing that they may possibly have on the question of his mental capacity, for that purpose alone.”

  Cacciatore then asked if the witness could be recalled after the conclusion of the People’s direct case. Sparrow agreed and the judge granted the request. Detective Carroll departed the stand. One of Kitty’s uncles then briefly testified to having identified the dead body of his niece prior to autopsy. The prosecution called William Benenson, assistant medical examiner, to discuss the autopsy he had performed.

  “Now, tell us, please,” Frank Cacciatore asked the doctor, “what your exam showed and whether you came to any conclusion concerning the caus
e of death of Catherine Genovese?”

  “Well, the essential facts were that she had multiple stab wounds scattered over the various parts of the body, that two of these stab wounds had penetrated the right and left chest, releasing air into the chest cavity. As a result of that, the lungs were compressed and breathing became impossible and she died. The cause of death as I defined it is bilateral pneumothorax due to multiple stab wounds; bilateral pneumothorax meaning air in the chest cavities compressing the lungs.”

  “On both sides?” Judge Shapiro asked.

  “Yes, Your Honor.”

  “Now, doctor,” Cacciatore continued, “you examined the wounds on the body of Catherine Genovese, is that so?” Cacciatore picked up the hunting knife that police had taken from Moseley’s home and asked if it could be the instrument that had produced the injuries found on the body. Dr. Benenson replied that it could so.

  “How many stab wounds did you note on the body of Catherine Genovese?”

  “There were thirteen stab wounds,” Benenson answered, “and then there were some cuts on the fingers, defense cuts. She had her hands up.”

  “What would that indicate to you?” Cacciatore asked.

  “That she put her hand up in order to deflect.”

  “Doctor, did you examine the vaginal area of the deceased, Kitty Genovese?”

  “Yes, I did.”

  “Will you tell us, please, what your findings were?”

  “There was no evidence of any recent injury, no positive evidence of there having been any sexual assault.”

  Sidney Sparrow cross-examined Dr. Benenson. One by one, he had the medical examiner go through the length, depth, and location of each of the stab wounds on Kitty’s body, using a chart to show where they had been inflicted. Far from wanting to downplay the extent of the victim’s injuries, Sparrow wanted the gruesome details explained to the jury, particularly in relation to the slashes on the breasts and the stab wounds in the chest and abdominal region. These injuries bore direct relevance to Sparrow’s defense and assertions on the defendant’s disturbed state of mind.

  Lieutenant Bernard Jacobs took the stand next. Frank Cacciatore asked Jacobs to recount the conversation he had with Winston Moseley at the 102nd precinct on the night of March 18.