There is a story in today's NYT by John Anderson about an independent film being made by a Danish film maker about the murder that was over 50 years ago. The story fills in some details of the murder, but the theme of the story is really about the making of the movie, and the rules in NYC governing using actual crime scenes in film.
Over 50 years, but yes, Mr. Anderson is right, the case still brings back memories. The number of inert witnesses still rings in my ears, but rings as 38, not 37, just like the 41 shots that brought down a man showing his wallet to the police. The film may need a new title.
(There seems to be confusion about the number of silent witnesses. The March 27,1964 story in the NYT by Martin Gansberg headlines the number at 37, but the lede says 38.)
I was 15 at the time and remember my father and neighbor talking about it. We lived in Flushing, so we weren't near the murder. My father asked our neighbor if he knew the phone number for the precinct if he had to call something in. My neighbor asked my father the same thing. All this predates the 9-1-1 emergency system, and in fact I think helped give birth to it. Neither my father or the neighbor knew our the precinct's number. For us, this would have been the one-oh-nine.
In Mr. Gansbery March 27, 1964 NYT piece he addresses the telephone issue.
The police stressed how simple it would have been to have gotten in touch with them. “A phone call,” said one of the detectives, “would have done it.” The police may be reached by dialing . “O” for operator or SPring 7-3100.
(Anyone familiar with telephone numbers at the time would recognize the exchange format that preceded the four numbers after the hyphen. SPring 7-3100 would no doubt ring police headquarters in Manhattan, on Centre Street in Little Italy, just south of Spring Street. My grandmother on East 19th Street had a SPring 7 exchange. Which shows you how many people had phones, even in the 1960s. East 19th Street and Centre street are not rally close to each other.)
In Mr. Gansbery March 27, 1964 NYT piece he addresses the telephone issue.
The police stressed how simple it would have been to have gotten in touch with them. “A phone call,” said one of the detectives, “would have done it.” The police may be reached by dialing . “O” for operator or SPring 7-3100.
(Anyone familiar with telephone numbers at the time would recognize the exchange format that preceded the four numbers after the hyphen. SPring 7-3100 would no doubt ring police headquarters in Manhattan, on Centre Street in Little Italy, just south of Spring Street. My grandmother on East 19th Street had a SPring 7 exchange. Which shows you how many people had phones, even in the 1960s. East 19th Street and Centre street are not rally close to each other.)
Mr. Anderson's story makes reference to the perhaps misreporting of the number of witnesses. I remember a 2013 piece that discussed this number when a digital version of A.M. Rosenthal's book on the crime was re-released: Thirty-Eight Witnesses: The Kitty Genovese Case.
A.M. Rosenthal was a legendary Pulitzer Award-winning reporter and editor for the Times who passed away in 2006. As the piece on the digital re-release of Mr. Rosenthal's December 1964 book goes into, the number of witnesses is questioned. When the original story broke, the 38 number became cemented in urban memory.
As a teenager I always wondered how did anyone know that there were 38 people who saw something and did nothing? How do you count people who did nothing? Call them up? They're anonymous to start with.
A.M. Rosenthal was a legendary Pulitzer Award-winning reporter and editor for the Times who passed away in 2006. As the piece on the digital re-release of Mr. Rosenthal's December 1964 book goes into, the number of witnesses is questioned. When the original story broke, the 38 number became cemented in urban memory.
As a teenager I always wondered how did anyone know that there were 38 people who saw something and did nothing? How do you count people who did nothing? Call them up? They're anonymous to start with.
But if Rosenthal was the editor and wasn't a Times legend, he should have been fired, along with the reporter who reported an uncorroborated number as gospel. It seems the Times and Mr. Rosenthal were unapologetic about the number they reported. Mr. Rosenthal was approached in 2004 by a reporter for the Times who asked him about the number and the claims of skeptics, Mr. Rosenthal replied:
“In a story that gets a lot of attention, there’s always somebody who’s saying, ‘Well, that’s not really what it’s supposed to be,’ “ Mr. Rosenthal is quoted as saying. “There may have been 38, there may have been 39, but the whole picture, as I saw it, was very affecting.”
The number of course doesn't take away from the ferocity of the crime, or the fact that a neighbor opened their door, looked in the hallway while Kitty was being assaulted, and did nothing more than close their door. Absolutely amazing. You really only needed to count that one incredibly callous witness. After the first, there is no other.
Ms. Genovese was a cousin, or a niece of Vito Genovese, the mafia boss. Later in life I read of the Arnold Schuster assignation, likely a mob ordered hit by Albert Anastasia, on the young lad you had spotted Willie Sutton, the long escaped, and very wanted bank robber in the subway, and who lead the cops on the pursuit of Willie that resulted in his re-capture. That was 1952.
Well 1952 to 1964 is not really a long time. Twelve years. I always then theorized that some people remembered Schuster's fate for "getting involved", and figured, why call the police? I might get killed.
Mr. Anderson closes his piece with the observation by one of the actresses, Samira Wiley, who reflects what we all know and fear: "It is still happening." Only now we have cell phone video.
http://www.onofframp.blogspot.com
http://www.onofframp.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment