The Kitty Genovese Murder: What Really Happened?
All murders are tragic, but it is rare that a murder gains attention from the American public and psychologists around the world. The 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese in New York City got people everywhere thinking about human nature and what we should do in times of crisis.
The Crime
Kitty Genovese, an independent and fun-loving 28-year-old woman, drove home from her job at a New York City bar late one night in March, 1964. It was around 3 a.m., and Kitty did not notice the man following behind her car. She pulled into her apartment complex and parked in a spot about a hundred feet from her apartment.
When she got out of her car, the man who had been following her, Winston Moseley, approached her with his hunting knife in his hand. Genovese began screaming and tried to run in the opposite direction, but Moseley caught up with her and stabbed her twice in the back. She managed to drag herself away from the scene, and Moseley sped away in his car.
Not too long after, Moseley returned to the apartment complex, where he found Genovese lying in a doorway. He stole $49 from her purse and stabbed her several more times before leaving again. A neighbor ran outside to find Genovese still alive, and she sat with her until an ambulance arrived. Sadly, Genovese died en route to the hospital.
Moseley was apprehended by the police six days after the attack, which he admitted to, saying he had been looking for an easy victim who wouldn’t fight back. He also admitted to several previous rapes and “30 or 40 burglaries.” A jury sentenced him to serve life in prison. He died in early 2016, the longest-serving inmate in the New York prison system.
Oblivious Bystanders
The Genovese murder became famous not because of the horrific nature of the crime, but because of the unbelievable stories about the other people in the apartment complex that night. What were they doing? Did Genovese’s screaming not concern them even a little bit?
The New York Times picked up the story, printing a shocking headline that “37 bystanders” continued about their business as a young woman was stabbed to death right outside their windows. In interviews the other apartment residents explained how they assumed the attack was just a drunken brawl outside, or a spat between spouses – nothing of importance. One was famously quoted in the article: “I didn’t want to get involved.”
The story garnered national attention; readers were horrified at the utter complacency of these bystanders. Many took the incident as a symbol of the cold anonymity of life in a big city.
Psychologists John Darley and Bibb Latané heard Genovese’s story and used it as inspiration for a series of experiments on what they named the “bystander effect.” In the experiments, they placed a test subject in a large crowd and staged an emergency situation (like a mugging or a someone fainting). In the presence of many others, participants were half as likely to jump in and help than if they were alone. The study is now one of the most famous and most replicable experiments in the field of psychology. ABC, a television network, even created a reality show based on the bystander effect, entitled What Would You Do?
“The 37” Redeemed
It was very surprising, then, when in 2007 a new study came out debunking the “37 bystanders” headline. It concluded that not very many people witnessed the attacks on Genovese, and those who did actually did do something to help. Because of the layout of the apartment complex, the crime was difficult for any neighbors to see. One person had witnessed part of the first attack and called the police, assuming it was a loud fight between a husband and wife. When he saw Genovese staggering away, he assumed everything was okay and did not investigate further. A few more neighbors took action during the second attack, including the woman who ran to sit with the dying Genovese and another neighbor who called the ambulance.
Some, including Genovese’s brother, who made a documentary out of his investigation into the real story of his sister’s murder, are resentful of the false portrayal of the witnesses. Not only did it do a disservice to those who did come to Kitty’s aid, it also gave America a false impression of uncaring city life. Some scientists also argue that the existence of “the bystander effect” allows people to justify their own inaction in times of crisis.
A. M. Rosenthal, editor of the New York Times when the article first ran, chooses to put the faulty reporting in a larger context: “I can’t swear… there were 37 people… 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.”