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

by Pelonero, Catherine

“I asked the defendant Moseley what he had done in reference to the killing of Kitty Genovese,” Jacobs testified. “He told me that during the early morning hours of March 13th he had left his home in a white Chevrolet Corvair and he cruised the highways, streets of Queens, looking for a lone, unattended female. He said to me that he had in mind to rape and to rob and to kill a girl.

  “I asked him, was he looking for a particular girl or what. He said, ‘I didn’t care which girl.’ He says, ‘I just set out to find the girl that was unattended and alone and I was going to kill her, and sometime during the early morning hours I was located at a point in the vicinity of Kew Gardens Road and I noticed a girl driving a red sports car, who was alone, and I determined that I would follow her. I did so, and I followed her to a point near a Long Island Railroad station. I observed her drive her car into the station and alight from the vehicle. When she had driven the car in, I had gotten out of my car and I stood by the side. When she commenced to walk across the lot in the direction of some houses, I cut diagonally across her path, thereby intercepting her.’ ”

  “When you say ‘diagonally across her path, thereby intercepting her,’ are you using your words or his?” Cacciatore asked.

  “I am using the defendant’s words, sir,” Jacobs said. He continued his recitation of what Moseley had told him about his initial attack on Kitty, and how he had run away when someone shouted at him from a window. “I said to him, ‘Why did you walk away?’ ‘Well,’ he says, ‘I was frightened. I did not want to get caught. I had a feeling that this man would close his window and go back to sleep and then I would return, and sure enough the man apparently closed the window because I heard no other calls. I then backed my car up a street into the next cross street, parked it there. I changed my hat. I was in the beginning wearing a sort of stocking cap and I changed it to a fedoratype hat. I then walked down the street. I approached the railroad depot, looked in there to see if the girl was hiding from me, and when I did not find her there, I went to the rear of the row of buildings. I tried one door, which was locked. I tried the second door and I found it open. It opened into a hallway and there she was lying on the floor. The moment she saw me, she immediately started to scream again. I wanted to shut her up because I didn’t want to get found doing what I was doing, and I stabbed her in the throat.’

  “I asked him, ‘Did you stab her in any other places besides the stab in the throat?’ He said, ‘I stabbed her a lot of times. The stab in the throat was just to shut her up.’

  “He says, ‘Then she was twisting and turning. I don’t know where or how many times I stabbed her,’ he says, ‘but I must have stabbed her a lot of times.’ And I said, ‘Well, did she finally get quiet?’ He said, ‘Well, not completely. She was moaning. She was making some kind of sounds but they didn’t come to me as words that I could make out. But finally she was laying fairly still and fairly quiet and I took my knife and I cut through her undergarments and I found that she was wearing a sanitary pad, which I picked from between her legs and cast aside in some part of the hallway. I also cut through her brassiere with the knife and a pair of falsies fell out of the brassiere. I was wearing gloves at this time and I took off the glove on my right hand to open my pants and I laid on the girl.’ ”

  Jacobs continued, “I then questioned him. I said, ‘Did you complete an act of sexual intercourse?’ He said, ‘I did not have an erection but I did have an orgasm.’ ”

  Judge Shapiro interrupted. “Are these his words or yours?”

  “These are the words of the defendant, Judge,” Jacobs replied. “He says, ‘I just laid on the girl and I don’t think I got it inside her. I then took some cosmetics which she had, a billfold containing $49 in money, some medication and some paper. I then noticed that one of the falsies, which I had cast aside, was imprinted with my fingers in blood. I figured that I was leaving behind one or more fingerprints that the police would find and I decided to also take the falsie with me, which I did.’ ”

  This testimony was crucial to the prosecution’s objective. The words Moseley had spoken to Lieutenant Jacobs showed not only his calculated and deliberate intent to kill Kitty Genovese, but also clearly indicated that he feared being caught; a concern that he should not have had if he was truly unaware that what he was doing was wrong.

  Jacobs further testified about Moseley telling them where he had discarded Kitty’s belongings and their subsequent recovery. He related what Moseley had told him about the knife he had used and where in Moseley’s home it had later been found. He also told of the conversation he had had with Moseley in which Moseley told Jacobs that he was sorry he had been caught, saying, “You could go to the electric chair for what I have just done.” The electric chair was precisely where the prosecution wanted him to go, and they intended to get as much into the record as possible to show that Winston Moseley deserved such a fate.

  When it was Sparrow’s turn to cross-examine, he began by asking Lieutenant Jacobs if he had made any notes of his conversations with Moseley. Jacobs said that he had not. Sparrow then picked at Jacobs’s testimony, questioning his recollection of words and phraseology that he claimed Moseley had used. After a few minutes of this, Judge Shapiro called all counsel up to the bench for an off-the-record conference. After the conference, the judge asked the witness, “Tell me, was the defendant articulate when you spoke to him?”

  “Very much so,” Jacobs answered.

  “Was his language, his vocabulary extensive and good?” Shapiro asked.

  “His language was very extensive,” Jacobs replied. “His speech was excellent, a well-modulated voice, carefully chosen selection of words. I was quite taken with it.”

  Sidney Sparrow asked, “He was quite calm?”

  “That would be an opinion matter,” Jacobs replied. “In your opinion, was he calm?”

  Not particularly so.”

  “And he wasn’t struck by anybody to impel the story or the statements that he made, was he?”

  “No, sir.”

  “Now, with relation to your statement when you suggested to him that he was happy to get it off his chest, did you make any notes of that?”

  “No, sir, I did not.”

  “Do you know of any written memoranda or any written data containing this statement that you just made?” Sparrow asked.

  “I do not know there to be one in existence,” Jacobs answered. “When I conduct an interrogation in my office, there are other detectives present. They are free to make notes if they wish. I don’t insist that they be done at any particular time. It may be that there are. I don’t know it of my own knowledge.”

  “You have, of course,” Sparrow continued, “refreshed your recollection as to the conversation had by you with Winston Moseley by conferring with the District Attorney; is that right?”

  “That’s correct,” Jacobs answered.

  “By looking at the statement that he signed on each page; is that right?”

  “Not at this time.”

  Sparrow stayed at this a little longer, seemingly to impress upon the jury that there was no written corroboration of Moseley’s statements about the electric chair.

  “Other than this one instance in which you say Winston Moseley said, ‘What the hell,’ did you at any time hear him utter any other strong words, profane or vulgar words?” Sparrow asked.

  “Yes, I believe I did,” Jacobs answered.

  “Will you tell us the circumstances and where?”

  “The circumstances were again sometime during the night of March 18th and the early morning of March the 19th. Do you want the specific words or do you want—”

  Judge Shapiro said, “Yes, counselor asked you for it. Give it to him.”

  Jacobs continued, “Well, he used the word in relation to a girl that he was seeking. He used the word ‘fuck’ and he also used the word ‘damn.’ ”

  “Was the first of these words that you just gave us used by him in connection with an incident which he described that he had done or an
act he had committed?” Sparrow asked.

  “This was in connection with the girl, Kitty Genovese.”

  “And you told us, though, that when he told you about it, he said that he had been impotent, but that he had an orgasm; is that right?”

  “No, sir. He said that, ‘I did not have an erection but I did have an orgasm.’ ”

  “And is that the way in which he described his attempt to have intercourse with Kitty Genovese, by the words you just told us now?”

  “Those were his precise words.”

  Over Cacciatore and Skoller’s objections, Sparrow then began asking Jacobs about Moseley’s confessions to other killings. “Were you a participant in or present when Winston Moseley was asked about any other acts that he had committed or killings he had done?”

  “I was present at a substantial part of the evening and early morning hours,” Jacobs answered.

  “Did he voluntarily tell about Kitty Genovese’s killing?”

  “Yes, he did.”

  “Did he voluntarily tell about killing one Anna Mae Johnson?”

  “Not to me, sir.”

  “Were you present when he did to anybody else?”

  “I was present part of the time, yes, sir.”

  Cacciatore cut in, “Again I object, if Your Honor pleases.”

  “Overruled.”

  “Were you present at any time when he detailed the killing of Barbara Kralik?”

  “Objection, Your Honor,” said Charles Skoller.

  “Overruled.”

  “No, sir, I was not,” Jacobs answered.

  Jacobs conceded that police from other precincts had come to his station house to question Moseley but said that he himself had not interrogated him about other homicides or crimes outside of his own precinct. Jacobs did say that he heard Moseley talk of rapes that he had committed, but none of the rapes had occurred in Jacobs’s precinct and he had not taken any notes. Regarding the confession to Kitty’s murder that Moseley had signed, Sparrow asked, “And he showed no hesitancy about signing the statement containing all of these various things which he told about, did he?”

  “He read it very carefully, took considerable time,” Jacobs answered. “He initialed each page as he read them.”

  “Did you ask him at any time to either write out in his own hand or to sign a statement made by anyone for him concerning the statement you say he made about, ‘What the hell, I could get the electric chair. I’m not happy. I’m sorry’? Did you ask him at any time to write that out?” Sparrow asked.

  “No sir.”

  On redirect, Cacciatore had Lieutenant Jacobs relate the episode in the station house in which Moseley had asked if he could cover his face while walking past reporters, stating that he wanted to do so because “this is a pretty shameful thing, or at least I’m ashamed of it.”

  Detective Frank Collins took the stand to give brief testimony of having recovered Kitty’s brown wallet and the business card from Alphonso Moseley’s repair shop in the bushes at Raygram. Sparrow did not cross-examine. The wallet and business card were entered as evidentiary exhibits, as were the hunting knife and Moseley’s statement taken by the assistant district attorney at the time of his arrest. The statement was first read aloud in the courtroom, thus concluding the People’s case.

  After a lunch recess, Sidney Sparrow recalled Detective John Carroll to the witness stand. Carroll had been present when Moseley spoke of the Johnson and Kralik killings. Though he did not ask Carroll about these admissions at any length, Sparrow had now established for the jury that Winston Moseley had admitted to other killings—as well as denied others—in the presence of detectives.

  Cacciatore objected. “If Your Honor pleases, with respect to these questions, I ask then that the Court instruct the jury that he is now making him his witness, and he’s not an adverse witness for that purpose, because the People did not bring in—”

  “No, no,” Judge Shapiro interrupted. “I’ll give no such instructions. The jury will regard the testimony, and the source from which it comes, and give it such weight as they think it deserves. I’ll say this to the jury in connection with this line of inquiry—that I’m allowing it into evidence at the behest of the defendant only because of the representation by counsel to me that in his opinion it has some materiality and relevancy to the defendant’s alleged mental state. It’s not being received for any other purpose. The defendant is not on trial for any other alleged crime that he may or may not have committed. He’s on trial charged with the killing of Catherine Genovese, and that alone.”

  John Carroll left the stand after confirming that Moseley had admitted to numerous burglaries, and further that he had denied involvement in the much-publicized double slaying of Janice Wylie and Emily Hoffert.

  The defense called Fannie Moseley to the stand.

  After establishing that she was forty-nine years old, lived in Manhattan, worked as a food service supervisor in Hollis, Queens, and was the mother of Winston Moseley, Sparrow led Fannie through a biography of Winston’s birth through early childhood, bringing out the facts that Fannie and Alphonso had been unmarried though living together at the time of his birth, and that Winston had been born out of wedlock.

  “If Your Honor please, I object to this line of questioning,” Cacciatore said. “It’s entirely irrelevant and immaterial.”

  “Overruled.”

  Sparrow continued, “Was this defendant Alphonso Moseley’s child?”

  “No.”

  “Was Winston Moseley told that at any time while you lived with him and Mr. Alphonso Moseley?”

  “Objected to, sir,” Cacciatore said.

  “Overruled.”

  “I never told him, sir,” Fannie Moseley replied.

  “Was Winston given to understand that you two were his parents while you lived with him?”

  “Yes.”

  Cacciatore cut in. “I object to what he understood, sir.”

  “Overruled.”

  “Did there come a time when the family separated and went different ways?” Sparrow asked his witness.

  “Yes. That was in 1944.”

  Judge Shapiro interjected, “He was nine years old at that time, is that right?”

  “Yes,” Fannie replied.

  Sparrow asked, “What type of child was he during those first nine years?”

  Cacciatore objected. Judge Shapiro asked the defense attorney, “How is that material, sir?”

  “Well, I would indicate, sir,” Sparrow explained, “there was a mental situation existing before, which thereafter changed.”

  “You tell me now, as responsible counsel, that you intend to connect it up, and it has relevance?” the judge asked.

  “I do, sir.”

  “I’ll take it upon your representation,” Shapiro said. The judge then asked Fannie who had taken custody of the defendant when she and Alphonso separated, and Fannie explained that Winston had first gone to live with Fannie’s mother in Michigan because Fannie had been sick.

  “Could you tell us now, prior to the time that he went to live with your mother, what type of child was he?” Sparrow asked.

  “Judge,” Cacciatore interrupted, “I don’t understand the question, sir—‘what type of child.’ I don’t understand, sir. I object, sir.”

  “I’m not interested in whether you understand, as long as I and the jury understand. Overruled.”

  Fannie answered the question. “Winston was always a very quiet child. He was, more or less, to himself most of his life.”

  Cacciatore spoke up again. “I object to that now, if Your Honor pleases—‘most of his life.’ ”

  “Overruled.”

  Clearly the judge intended to give the defense a degree of liberty in exploring the defendant’s background. Though Cacciatore continued to object on grounds of relevancy, Judge Shapiro allowed Sparrow to have his witness detail the homes the defendant had been shuttled to and from between the age of nine to adulthood. Judge Shapiro asked how long during hi
s childhood the defendant had lived away from his mother. Fannie replied that he had lived away from her for about ten years, and that during this time she had seen him about every three months.

  Sparrow then questioned Fannie about the operation she had undergone for the removal of a stomach tumor. This surgery had directly preceded Fannie and Alphonso’s first separation when Winston was nine years old and Sparrow thought it had a bearing on Winston’s eventual development of rage at—and uncontrollable desire to mutilate—the female body. Establishing that the defendant had been aware of the nature of his mother’s surgery that had resulted in her leaving, Sparrow then moved on to Fannie and Alphonso’s first, brief reconciliation attempt in Detroit, six months after Fannie’s surgery.

  “And did you and Winston and Mr. Moseley have a home there?”

  “Yes. For a very short period; maybe about a year, if that long.”

  “And was there any marital problem then between you and your husband concerning another man?”

  “Objected to; irrelevant,” Cacciatore said.

  “Well, Mr. Sparrow,” the judge said, “you better get down to the issue in the case. I’m not going to let you wander all over the field. I want to give you as much latitude as I possibly can, but bring it down to the defendant’s state.”

  Sparrow asked Fannie, “Did you leave your husband and go to another man?”

  “I left my husband; I came to New York. Another man, let us say, came to me.”

  In response to Sparrow’s questions, Fannie confirmed that she lived with another man and that she had continued to do so throughout the ensuing years.

  “And did you on occasion attempt to re-establish a home with Winston and Mr. Moseley?”

  “Yes, but it never worked out.”

  “On the occasions that you did go back and attempt to work it out, was there quarrel, or violence in the house with Winston present?”

  “Yes, there were repeated quarrels. My whole marriage with Winston’s father was a repetition of quarrels, arguments, fights, because he was a very erratic person; he was unpredictable.”

  “Did any of these quarrels have to do with your relationship with another man other than Alphonso Moseley, the man he believed to be his father?” Sparrow asked.