679465

research-article2017
PPSXXX10.1177/1745691616679465KassinThe Killing of Kitty Genovese

Perspectives on Psychological Science

The Killing of Kitty Genovese: What Else 2017, Vol. 12(3) 374­–381
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
Does This Case Tell Us? sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1745691616679465
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616679465
www.psychologicalscience.org/PPS

Saul M. Kassin
John Jay College of Criminal Justice

Abstract
Well known in popular culture, the 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese in Queens, New York, became famous because not
one of an alleged 38 bystanders called police until it was too late. Within psychology, this singular event inspired the
study of bystander intervention. With the spotlight of history focused on Ms. Genovese and bystanders, other events,
also profound for what they tell us about human social behavior, have escaped public notice. Based on archival
records and current interviews, this article describes the three issues linked to Genovese. First, three false confessions,
taken from two individuals, led to their wrongful convictions and imprisonment. One of these individuals was cited
by the U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona (1966); the other individual is alive and well and wants to clear his
name. Second, the narrative of the unresponsive bystander was initiated by police, not by journalists, in response to
probing questions about one of these confessions. Finally, there is the ironic fact, which somehow has slipped through
the cracks, that the killer of Genovese was ultimately captured as a result of the intervention of two bystanders.

Keywords
bystander intervention, false confessions, social influence, justice and law

On April 4, 2016, an 81 year-old convicted murderer fact that individuals are less likely to offer help when in
named Winston Moseley died in prison. At 52 years, he the presence of others than when alone.
was the longest serving prisoner in New York State. Few Coming on the heels of Milgram’s (1963) pioneering
people remember his name, although many know the first experiment on obedience to authority, in which 65%
name of his victim: Catherine “Kitty” Genovese, whose of subjects complied with an experimenter’s order to
screams reportedly went unheeded by neighbors. As the administer painful shocks to another person, the bystander
story went, during that two-phased 35-minute attack on rese­ arch also trumpeted social psychology’s hardcore
March 13, 1964, no one—not one person—called the situationist message: Kitty’s urban neighbors were not apa-
police until it was too late. thetic, immoral, cruel, or monstrous. Rather, they were
In New York, this singular event inspired a new cen- trapped in a socially induced illusion that their help was
tralized emergency phone number—the precursor to not needed.
911. It also inspired the study of bystander intervention A lingering debate has simmered over the years con-
in social psychology. In a series of studies, Latané and cerning the number of bystanders who actually saw or
Darley mimicked the psychological situation in which heard all or part of the attack (Manning, Levine, & Collins,
people are confronted with a stranger in need of help— 2007; Rasenberger, 2004). Cook (2014) revisited the ques-
in one experiment, for example, a confederate pretended tions about the bystanders: how many there were, what
to have a seizure within earshot of varying numbers of they saw and heard, and what they did. Pelonero (2014)
subjects (Darley & Latané, 1968); in another, a testing also explored other previously neglected aspects of the
room filled with smoke in the presence of a subject who case, like the facts that Genovese had a same-sex partner,
was alone or in the company of others (Latané & Darley,
1968). As summarized in The Unresponsive Bystander,
Corresponding Author:
Latané and Darley (1970) outlined a five-step decision- Saul Kassin, Department of Psychology, John Jay College of Criminal
making process of helping in emergency situations and Justice, 524 West 59 Street–10th Floor, New York, NY 10019
coined the term bystander effect to describe the empirical E-mail: skassin@jjay.cuny.edu
The Killing of Kitty Genovese 375

that her killer had committed other crimes, and that Mae Johnson one month earlier in South Ozone Park—
police helped shape the story told in the newspapers. an unsolved crime. Anyone else? Yes, he said that he also
Although the media spotlight focused on Genovese killed 15 year-old Barbara Kralik in her Springfield Gar-
and her neighbors, other stories closely linked to the dens home at 3 a.m. on a July night in 1963. He later
event, which are also profound for what they say about repeated these confessions, with great consistency and
human social behavior, were unfolding, only to get lost detail, to his attorney, to a psychiatrist, and at his own trial.
in the historical record. What follows is a brief overview Given Moseley’s willingness to talk, detectives next
of these events. pressed him on the August 1963 murders in Manhattan of
two young professional women named Emily Hoffert and
Janice Wylie. This headline crime, dubbed the “career girl
One Crime, Two Confessions
murders,” had not yet been solved. This time, however,
In a classic experiment, Simons and Chabris (1999) pre- Moseley denied involvement. He was discerning in his con-
sented subjects with a short video clip of six adults— fessions, and as we’ll see later, he was not the perpetrator.
three in white shirts, three in black shirts—passing a For police and prosecutors, Moseley’s confession to
basketball to each other. They asked the subjects to count the late-night Kralik murder was inconvenient, to say the
silently the number of times the players in white shirts least. They terminated questioning, took no formal state-
pass the ball. For 9 seconds over the course of the video, ment, and sought no corroboration. They did this bec­
someone in a gorilla costume walks through the room, ause, months earlier, Queens detectives had taken a
faces the camera, and pounds its chest before leaving. confession from a White 18-year-old dropout by the
When later asked about the clip, half the subjects tested name of Alvin Mitchell. At the time of Moseley’s confes-
did not even see the intrusive figure. As a result of “inat- sion, Mitchell was sitting in jail awaiting trial.
tentional blindness,” it was as if the gorilla was invisible Police had interrogated Mitchell seven times for over
(see Chabris & Simons, 2009). 50 hours, culminating in an all-night session that lasted
In the story of Kitty Genovese, the main backstage nearly 13 straight hours before he capitulated. He signed
drama concerned false confessions. Psychologists of my a confession written by detectives at 1 a.m., which he
generation have been staring at this case for more than repeated in front of TV cameras in a staged perp walk the
50 years. Yet, like the gorilla pounding its chest in studies next morning. Mitchell soon recanted the confession
of inattentional blindness, the bystander narrative ren- attributed to him, claiming he was threatened and physi-
dered these false confessions all but invisible to history. cally abused (e.g., smacked in the head with rolled up
It is now time to reexamine this case in light of all that newspapers, an old “third degree” trick that left no visible
we now know about the psychology of this phenomenon bruises or cuts). His attorney was vocal and animated as
(Kassin, 1997, 2005, 2012; for an overview, see the Scien- to his innocence. Still, the young man was set to be tried
tific Review or “White Paper” of the American Psychology- when Moseley blurted out his unwelcome confession to
Law Society; Kassin et al., 2010). Kralik. At least one of these confessions had to be false.
Five days after the Kitty Genovese murder, Winston But which?
Moseley, a 29 year-old African American man, was arre­ At the time, it was clear that Moseley had killed
sted for burglary and brought in for questioning. The Genovese—he knew too much and led police to her
evidence used to convict him was a confession that was belongings. It was less clear if he was credible in his two
effortlessly taken, according to police, and amply cor- other admissions. Determined to defend Mitchell’s prior
roborated by the fact that he led police to Ms. Genovese’s confession to Kralik, police were relieved when Moseley
wallet and keys, which he had dumped outside his Mount appeared to misstate how Annie Mae Johnson was killed
Vernon workplace. 1 month earlier. He said he shot her twice in the stomach
Moseley said he stabbed Ms. Genovese with a hunting and four times in the back with a .22-caliber rifle before
knife twice in the back. He then fled to his car when sexually assaulting her and setting fire to her house. But
someone yelled down through an open window. Con- the Medical Examiner had concluded that she died of
vinced that no one would interfere and driven by com- puncture wounds from an ice pick or some other sharp
pulsion, Moseley returned moments later because, as he object.
testified at his own trial, “I’d not finished what I set out to Moseley was confronted with this apparent inconsis-
do.” Following her trail of blood, he found Ms. Genovese tency, but he stood by his story. To discredit him, and
slumped on the floor of a nearby apartment, stabbed her thereby preserve the Mitchell prosecution, authorities
to death, and raped her. flew to Ms. Johnson’s home state of South Carolina,
Moseley seemed willing to answer questions, so the where she was buried, and exhumed her body. To every-
detectives asked if he had committed any other crimes. one’s astonishment, however, the local coroner confirmed
Matter of factly, he said that he killed 24 year-old Annie Moseley’s account. Ms. Johnson was shot six times with a
376 Kassin

.22 caliber rifle—just as he had said. Four bullets, detected appealed his conviction, claiming that Sparrow had a
in X-rays, were removed from her body. conflict of interest, but the appeal was denied.
Although Moseley’s culpability in the Johnson murder The case against Mitchell commenced immediately
was beyond dispute, the Queens District Attorney never thereafter, also in Judge Shapiro’s court. At this trial, the
prosecuted him for it—even while citing this gruesome prosecution relied on Mitchell’s recanted confession and
crime in a letter opposing his parole 47 years later. In that the incriminating but also contested statement taken from
letter, the Queens District Attorney’s Office described his friend Borges. The defense sought to admit into evi-
Moseley as a “predator” with “an overwhelming compul- dence Kralik’s “dying declaration” in which she indicated
sion to commit acts of violence” (Testagrossa, 2011). no familiarity with her assailant (Mitchell was an acquain-
Also astonishing is that despite Moseley’s newly dem- tance), but the prosecutor objected and the statement
onstrated credibility (with confessions confirmed for was excluded.
both Genovese and Johnson, he was 2 for 2 in baseball The defense centered on two witnesses: an alibi wit-
terms), the already shaky prosecution of Mitchell for the ness who testified that he picked Mitchell up hitchhiking
Kralik murder continued unabated. This decision was a and drove him home that night, and the newly convicted
difficult one as the local press was suspicious of the Winston Moseley. From the witness stand, in front of a
case. (For a retrospective first-hand account from the packed courtroom, Moseley recounted in haunting detail
prosecutor who convinced a reluctant D.A. to proceed, how he entered the Kralik house at 3 a.m.; walked
see Skoller, 2008.) upstairs, past other bedrooms and into her room; and
Ultimately, the prosecutor said he was persuaded by stabbed her with a small serrated steak knife—just like
how closely Mitchell’s confession aligned with a state- one that police found down the block from Kralik’s house
ment police took from a friend of his, 16 year-old George the next day, a fact never reported in the newspapers.
Borges, which implicated Mitchell. Borges allegedly said Moseley said he ran out when the girl moaned, awaken-
that he drove Mitchell to and from Kralik’s house that ing her parents.
night. However, Borges later insisted that he was threat- Mitchell’s trial ended in a hung jury: 11 votes for
ened and beaten by police and that this story was false. acquittal, 1 holdout for conviction. Undeterred by the
Still, in justifying his decision to pursue the case, Skoller lopsided breakdown, clearly spelling reasonable doubt,
(2008) would later write, “No police officer could coerce Skoller convinced the Queens District Attorney to retry
two boys to come up with stories as similar as these are Mitchell, which they did 9 months later, in March of 1965.
in so many details” (p. 73). The press remained suspicious of this case. In Reading
Basking in hindsight, of course, I can only fantasize Eagle, Ruth Reynolds (1965) asked, “Did the Boy or the
the theatrical back-from-the-future moment wherein I Man Kill Barbara?” In The Saturday Evening Post, Bard
return to 1964 to prophesy that, in 25 years, New York Lindeman (1965) asked, “Who Didn’t Kill Barbara Kralik?”
City police would produce similarly detailed confessions But Skoller was determined not to repeat his past failure,
to the heinous rape of a jogger in Central Park from five and indeed this second trial would prove to be different.
teenagers ranging from 14 to 16 years old—all of whom He had Mitchell’s alibi witness from the first trial arrested
would later be excluded by DNA testing and proved for outstanding traffic violations at the start of the second
innocent. To this day, the exonerations of the Central trial. While sitting in a jail cell, this alibi did not re-testify.
Park Five stand as a symbol of the peril of false confes- He recalled Borges, Mitchell’s friend who had recanted his
sions (Burns, 2011; Kassin, 2002). incriminating testimony from the first trial. “Aided” by a
True to the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, polygraph, and with a threat of charges pending, Skoller
and inconceivable by today’s standards, the sequence of persuaded Borges to testify again. This time he did not
events triggered by the Genovese killing came quickly. waver. As before, Skoller also succeeded in convincing the
On March 19, 1964, Moseley confessed to three murders. judge to exclude Kralik’s dying declaration.
He was promptly indicted for Genovese on March 23, Perhaps most astonishing, Skoller brought in a new
pled not guilty by reason of insanity on June 8, was con- eyewitness, a bus driver who testified that he recalled
victed of first-degree murder on June 11, and sentenced picking up a boy fitting Mitchell’s description 20 months
to death on June 15—all in Judge Irwin Shapiro’s court earlier near Kralik. Called into the D.A.’s office, this wit-
(the death sentence was later reduced to a life term ness at first recalled nothing of value from the night in
on appeal). By odd coincidence, Moseley’s assigned question. However, he was then subjected to a highly
counsel, Sidney Sparrow, had previously represented suggestive set of interviews that shaped both his report
Ms. Genovese in a minor gambling offense for which she and his confidence—much like a rat in a Skinner box.
had to pay a small fine (the textbook black-and-white This process was thoroughly detailed in a defense peti-
portrait photo of her, the first result to appear in a Google tion for appeal (see Erlbaum, 1969). Years ahead of its
search of images, was her mug shot). In 1989, Moseley time, this appeals document anticipated the now rich
The Killing of Kitty Genovese 377

science of eyewitness identifications (e.g., Brewer & I was prepared to back off if he hedged. But he did not.
Wells, 2011; Wells et al., 1998). We called and left a message; Mitchell called back and
What the record shows, without dispute, is that this left this voicemail: “Yeah this is Alvin Mitchell. I just got
bus driver went on to identify Mitchell—not from a clas- your voicemail . . . I am very interested in what you were
sic lineup containing a suspect surrounded by innocent saying. . . . I would love to prove my innocence. I’ve been
foils, and not even from a single still photograph, but trying, wanting to do that for years. I appreciate you
from an ABC TV news clip of Mitchell’s perp walk con- guys’ concern and hopefully we can do something there.
fession! “In spite of some of the prodigious tasks and Thanks a lot for getting in touch with me. Appreciate it.
feats of memory that have been exhibited here,” said Definitely appreciate it.”
Mitchell’s attorney, sarcastically, at the start of his summa- I drove to northern Vermont in June of 2014 to meet
tion, “nobody is superhuman” (Skoller, 2008, p. 192). Mitchell. In the backyard of his home, our meeting was
Then there was Winston Moseley, a wild card, brought an emotional one. Although he struggled to recall the
into court from prison. At Mitchell’s first trial, Moseley fine details of his interrogations and trials, Mitchell said
recounted his depraved spree of violence—including the that he remembers threats and promises; being hit,
step-by-step account of the late-night walk through the starved, and sleep deprived; the suggestion that he
Kralik house and murder. However, this time he refused blacked out—hence, not his fault; and being driven from
to talk: “I didn’t do it,” he testified, “and I don’t intend to one precinct to another so his parents could not find him.
go into any explanation why.” I asked Mitchell why he confessed. His reply was simple
Mitchell could not catch a break. At 1:35 a.m. on March and to the point: “I would have confessed to killing the
12, 1965, after more than 11 hours of deliberation, the president because them people had me scared to death.”
jury convicted Mitchell—not of murder, but of first- Two recollections in particular stay with Mitchell. He
degree manslaughter. He served 12 years and 8 months recalls being taken to Barbara Kralik’s house and into her
before being released. According to Mitchell, he was eli- bedroom and the horror that ensued: “Her mother was
gible for parole before then but was denied because he there. And the poor woman is pleading with me, ‘How
would not express remorse. come you did this?’” The second recollection was of his
At the time of his death in 2016, Moseley was at the heart-stopping fear of death: “At one point, the paddy
Clinton Correctional Facility in upstate New York. Three wagon stopped. The officer got out, opened up the back
years ago, embedded in a letter to Moseley from a former door and said, ‘Run because I want to shoot you.’”
inmate and friend of his, I asked him about the Kralik Mitchell’s emotional memory is raw. He tears up and
murder. In light of all that I had uncovered, I had two his voice cracks when he talks about how the case broke
questions: Did you kill her, and why at Mitchell’s second up his family, causing them to sell their home; how his
trial did you refuse to repeat the confession you had sister Maryann and his younger brothers had to be sent
given in excruciating detail five times before? Moseley’s to live elsewhere; and how it destroyed his relationship
handwritten reply was short and to the point: “As for Saul with a girlfriend he had hoped to marry. “Like it was yes-
Kassin, sorry, but I have absolutely nothing to say about terday,” he says.
Alvin Mitchell and the Barbara Kralik case.” Others I have interviewed about the case, insiders to
the system, feel the same way. I talked to Judge William
Erlbaum, then a partner of Herbert Lyon’s, and the lawyer
Today, More Than 50 Years Later
who wrote the brilliant petition for appeal on the sugges-
Upon his release from prison in 1978, and with help from tive eyewitness identification in Mitchell’s second trial.
a parole officer convinced of his innocence, Mitchell Erlbaum, who went on to become a State Supreme Court
found a room to live in and a job in upstate New York. Justice, insists that an innocent Mitchell was “targeted.”
Three years later, he was married. After 24 years and six Over breakfast at the Flagship Diner in Queens, he recalls
children, he and his wife divorced. Today, Mitchell lives this case as one of the two worst he had ever seen. Describ-
in rural northern Vermont. Now in his 70s, he owns a ing the criminal justice system as “a closed shop,” he said,
home; works as a technician and security expert for a “the culture at the time was to protect the cops at all costs.”
cable company; enjoys boating, fishing, and camping I also talked to Judge Joseph Lisa, then a young law
with his brother; and has a relationship with a woman secretary for Judge Shapiro in 1964. He went on to
who cares deeply about him. become Chief of the Appeals Bureau of the Queens
With help from an investigator who volunteered his District Attorney’s Office and State Supreme Court Justice.
time, I tracked Mitchell down. I did not know if he would He continues to practice law. In court for much of
want to revisit this part of his life after so many years, and the Moseley-Mitchell proceedings, Judge Lisa refers to
378 Kassin

Moseley’s testimony as “riveting” and Mitchell’s case as which the actual perpetrator, a burglar named Richard
“highly unsettling.” As he took me on a walking tour of Robles, was later convicted. Whitmore was awarded
the Genovese murder site in Kew Gardens and the court- $500,000 in damages and went on to live in Wildwood
house nearby where both Moseley and Mitchell were where he operated a commercial fishing boat until he was
tried, Judge Lisa acknowledged that the Mitchell case injured in an accident. He died in 2012 at the age of 68.
haunts him as well. As measured by the high-profile obituaries that accom-
Then there is Robert Sparrow, an attorney and the son panied Whitmore’s death (e.g., Vitello, 2012), these false
and then junior partner of Sidney Sparrow, who was confessions were of historic significance. In 1965, New
Winston Moseley’s lawyer and is now deceased. In prep- York Governor Nelson Rockefeller cited this case as a
aration for Moseley’s defense, Sparrow visited his client basis for banning the state’s death penalty except for the
at the Kings County Hospital shortly after his arrest. With killing of police officers. The following year, the U.S.
a reel-to-reel tape recorder in hand, he took Moseley’s Supreme Court, in its landmark opinion in Miranda v.
confession to the Kralik murder. “Chilling,” “breathtak- Arizona (1966), deemed it necessary to require that sus-
ing,” “emotionless,” and “without remorse” are words he pects in custody be informed of their rights and cited
uses to describe it. I visited Sparrow in his home in Whitmore as “the most conspicuous” example of police
Queens. Impressed by the richness of detail, he told me coercion in the interrogation room.
that Moseley’s confession to Kralik was “absolutely suffi-
cient to persuade us.” Now retired from law practice,
Sparrow still has this tape.
Kitty’s Bystanders: Where the Story
Came From
Historic Link: The Case of A third story concerns the Kitty Genovese case itself and
why it seeped into the history books, into psychology,
George Whitmore and into our collective consciousness. At first, the crime
A second story touched by the Genovese case concerns was reported briefly and matter-of-factly. The New York
a whole other set of false confessions. As noted earlier, Times covered it in four short paragraphs. Within 2 weeks,
detectives at the Moseley interrogation were determined however, it had morphed into a tale of the horrific apathy
to solve the August 28, 1963, killings of two young of 38 bystanders. Over time, that number would prove to
professional women in a Manhattan Upper East Side become a source of confusion and controversy. Where
apartment: 21-year-old Emily Hoffert and 23-year-old did it come from?
Janice Wylie—the so-called “career girl” murders. Moseley’s Ten days after the killing, Times Metro Editor Abe
detectives pushed him on it, but he was innocent of Rosenthal had lunch with NYPD Commissioner Michael
these crimes and flatly denied having anything to do Murphy. With Mitchell awaiting trial in the Kralik case,
with it. Moseley’s blurted admission had stirred up a hornet’s
One month later, with this high-profile case still unsolved, nest. Aware that Moseley had confessed to Kralik and
Brooklyn detectives questioned George Whitmore, a soft- that Mitchell was claiming coercion, the local papers
spoken 19-year-old African American man. After 26 hours were asking difficult questions. Rosenthal wanted to talk
of pressure-filled interrogation, none of which was about that, but Murphy changed the subject: “Brother,
recorded, they produced an exquisitely detailed 61-page that Queens story is one for the books. Thirty-eight
confession to both murders and to a third as well. witnesses . . . this beats everything” (Cook, 2014, p. 97;
Whitmore signed the statement attributed to him but he Pelonero, 2014, p. 164). For the first time on record,
immediately recanted it, saying that the police had beaten Murphy injected into the story the now questionable
him and that he had not even read the statement he was claim that 38 witnesses had all failed to act.
pressured to sign. The seed was planted. Rosenthal put reporter Martin
It turned out that Whitmore had a solid if not ironic Gansberg on the story, who went on to confirm the
alibi: On the day of the murders, he was with friends 160 bystander report with one of Mitchell’s detectives. On
miles away in Wildwood, NJ, watching Reverend Martin March 27, The New York Times published Gansberg’s
Luther King deliver his historic “I have a dream” speech (1964) now famous article. His page 1 headline read: “37
on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. This infamous case Who Saw Murder Didn’t Call Police.” Several months
is described in two books: Whitmore (Shapiro, 1969) and later, Rosenthal (1964/1999) followed up on his reporter’s
The Savage City (English, 2011). story with the book, Thirty-Eight Witnesses: The Kitty
After spending nearly 3 years in jail and a decade on Genovese Case.
bond, Whitmore was ultimately exonerated of all con- At this point, there is no way to know if Murphy
fessed crimes—including the career girl murders for changed the subject as a willful sleight of hand—a
The Killing of Kitty Genovese 379

diversionary tactic aimed at moving the spotlight away the staying power of this aspect of the story, a documen-
from the Kralik confessions. Willful or not, that was the tary entitled Witness premiered in 2015 to critical acclaim.
effect it had. Bill Genovese, Kitty’s younger brother, was determined
to unearth details of his sister’s death. What bothered him
Moseley’s Arrest: The Irony That most was her image as “the girl no one cared about.” He
sought to visit Moseley in prison; Moseley denied his
Slipped Through the Cracks request. But he did talk to the man who shouted down at
In light of what Kitty Genovese has come to represent, a Moseley through a window that night, a woman who
fourth twist to this case may be the most astonishing of insisted that she had called the police, and a friend of
all. It concerns how police later apprehended Moseley Kitty’s who came downstairs and held her as she died. In
for an unrelated crime (see Cook, 2014; New York v. his view, the apathetic bystander is a false narrative of
Moseley, 1964; Pelonero, 2014; Skoller, 2008). what happened.
Five days after the Genovese murder, Moseley tried to To some extent, the precise number is a moot point.
burglarize a home in Corona Queens, NY, in broad day- The bystander effect was born of this case, thankfully—
light. To that point, he had stolen and sold numerous and Moseley’s capture 6 days later because of the actions
television sets and other electronics. He parked his white of two neighbors reminds us that social and situational
Chevy Corvair, broke into the house, and loaded a TV set parameters are all important in predicting bystander
into his car. intervention. Consistent with this pairing of Moseley
Seeing this, a neighbor confronted him and then called stories, for example, a recent meta-analysis indicates
a second neighbor. Calmly, Moseley said he was helping that while the bystander effect is robust, the inhibiting
the owners move. His lie was not convincing though, and effect of others is diminished when bystanders know
the two men took action. While Moseley was back in the each other than when they are strangers (Fischer et al.,
house, one neighbor unhooked the distributor caps in his 2011).
car, thereby disabling it. The other called the police. Flee- In light of the loose connection between Moseley and
ing on foot, Moseley was picked up a short distance the false confessions of George Whitmore, it is notewor-
away and brought in for questioning. Within hours, he thy that 2016 marked the 50th anniversary of Miranda v.
was confessing to a string of burglaries and three late- Arizona (1966), which cited Whitmore’s case. In this
night murders. opinion, for the first time, the Court required police to (a)
Somehow this part of the Genovese story went unno- inform suspects in custody of their rights to silence and
ticed and without fanfare: In a most fitting, if not ironic, to counsel and (b) obtain a voluntary, knowing, and
conclusion to Moseley’s crime spree, the perpetrator intelligent waiver of those rights. Over the years, psy-
whose actions spawned the narrative of the nonrespon- chologists in the legal realm have studied various aspects
sive urban bystander was captured precisely because of of this warning and waiver requirement and have chal-
the intervention of urban bystanders! lenged assumptions concerning the protection it affords
(Smalarz, Scherr, & Kassin, 2016).
Finally, there is Alvin Mitchell. For more than 50 years,
Coda
this not-so-invisible gorilla has managed to escape our
When Winston Moseley died in the Clinton Correctional notice: With all eyes focused on Kitty Genovese and her
Facility in April 2016, his death prompted obituaries neighbors, another drama had unfolded that would later
focused on the infamous rape and killing of Kitty be forgotten. This drama is glaringly relevant to the post-
Genovese. Yet one month before that he had raped and DNA world we now live in, the wrongful convictions
killed Annie Mae Johnson—a crime for which he was work of the Innocence Project, the database of the
never charged; he also confessed to killing Barbara National Registry of Exonerations, and the realization that
Kralik—the crime for which Mitchell was prosecuted and false confessions occur on a regular basis. Twenty-five
convicted. In 1968, Moseley escaped from Attica. He beat years ahead of the infamous Central Park Jogger case,
a guard senseless, took his gun, and fled (he would later the Kitty Genovese case presents a story, or two or
be captured in time to participate in the prison riot). Dur- three, about a false confession. Despite more than 30
ing his escape, Moseley raped a woman and took hostages years of scholarly interest in false confessions (Kassin &
before having to surrender to federal authorities. Over the Wrightsman, 1985) and a social psychology textbook in
course of life in prison, his request for parole was rejected its 10th edition (Kassin, Fein, & Markus, 2017), even this
18 times, the most recent occasion being in 2015. social psychologist was not aware of it.
The Moseley legacy persists to this day. Debate contin- There are lessons to be learned from this part of the
ues to swirl over the question of how many bystanders story. The scientific study of police interro­ gations and
witnessed all or part of the Genovese attack. Attesting to confessions is well grounded in basic psychology.
380 Kassin

Researchers have thus drawn from principles pertaining Chabris, C. F., & Simons, D. J. (2009). The Invisible gorilla: How
to the effects of reward and punishment, human decision our intuitions deceive us. New York, NY: Crown Books.
making, memory and forgetting, self-regulation, social Cook, K. (2014). Kitty Genovese: The murder, the bystanders, the
influence, childhood and adolescence, personality, and crime that changed America. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention
psychopathology. Focused on factors that might lead an
in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of
innocent person to confess, this literature has served as
Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377–383.
the basis for numerous reviews of the literature as well as Drizin, S. A., & Leo, R. A. (2004). The problem of false confes-
an American Psychological Association (2014) Resolution sions in the post-DNA world. North Carolina Law Review,
on the Interrogations of Criminal Suspects. Collectively, 82, 891–1007.
this research has shown that innocent people can be English, T. J. (2011). The savage city: Race, murder, and a gen-
induced to confess to crimes they did not commit, that eration on the edge. New York, NY: William Morrow.
judges and juries have difficulty assessing confessions as Erlbaum, W. M. (1969, January 29). People of the State of New
a matter of common sense, and that reforms are needed York v. Alvin L. Mitchell. Verified Petition, Indictment No.
to mitigate both sets of problems (see Drizin & Leo, 2004; 10310–1963.
Gudjonsson, 2003; Kassin & Gudjonsson, 2004; Lassiter & Fischer, P., Krueger, J. I., Greitemeyer, T., Vogrincic, C.,
Kastenmüller, A., Frey, D., . . . Kainbacher, M. (2011).
Meissner, 2010).
The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander
Calls for reform are designed to protect vulnerable
intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergen-
populations such as juveniles and people with intellectual cies. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 517–537.
or mental health impairments, to curtail the use of coer- Gansberg, M. (1964, March 27). 37 who saw murder didn’t call
cive police tactics such as the presentation of false evi- the police. The New York Times, p. 1.
dence and minimization themes that imply leniency, and Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and
to provide judges and juries with expert testimony that confessions: A handbook. Chichester, England: John Wiley
describes psychological risk factors. The most significant & Sons.
proposed safeguard for these purposes is to require the Kassin, S. M. (1997). The psychology of confession evidence.
electronic recording of interrogations from start to finish. American Psychologist, 52, 221–233.
Would the fates of Alvin Mitchell and George Whitmore Kassin, S. M. (2002, November 1). False confessions and the
jogger case. The New York Times, p. A31.
have been different if their lengthy interrogations, not to
Kassin, S. M. (2005). On the psychology of confessions: Does
mention Moseley’s, had been fully recorded? It is entirely
innocence put innocents at risk? American Psychologist, 60,
possible. As summarized in the AP-LS White Paper cited 215–228.
earlier: “Without equivocation, our most essential recom- Kassin, S. M. (2012). Why confessions trump innocence.
mendation is to lift the veil of secrecy from the interroga- American Psychologist, 67, 431–445.
tion process in favor of the principle of transparency” Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A.,
(Kassin et al., 2010, p. 25). & Redlich, A. D. (2010). Police-induced confessions: Risk
factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior,
Author Note 34, 3–38.
Kassin, S., Fein, S., & Markus, H. R. (2017). Social psychology
The historical research and interviews contained in this article
(10th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
required extraordinary contacts and assistance from many peo-
Kassin, S. M., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2004). The psychology of
ple. In particular, I am indebted to Luke Brindle-Khym, John
confession evidence: A review of the literature and issues.
Derounian, William Erlbaum, Joseph Lisa, Tyler Maroney, Alvin
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 35–69.
Mitchell, Karen Newirth, Bill Santoro, Robert Sparrow, Marty
Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1985). Confession evi-
Tankleff, and Maryann Van Arsdale.
dence. In S. Kassin & L. Wrightsman (Eds.), The psychol-
ogy of evidence and trial procedure (pp. 67–94). Beverly
Declaration of Conflicting Interests Hills, CA: Sage.
The author declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the Lassiter, G. D., & Meissner, C. A. (Eds.). (2010). Police inter-
authorship or the publication of this article. rogations and false confessions: Current research, practice,
and policy recommendations. Washington, DC: American
References Psychological Association.
Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander
American Psychological Association. (2014). Resolution on inter- intervention in emergencies. Journal of Personality and
rogations of criminal suspects. Retrieved from www.apa Social Psychology, 10, 215–221.
.org/about/policy/interrogations.aspx Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander:
Brewer, N., & Wells, G. L. (2011). Eyewitness identification. Why doesn’t he help? New York, NY: Appleton-Century-
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 24–27. Crofts.
Burns, S. (2011). The central park five: A chronicle of a city Lindeman, B. (1965, January 16). Who didn’t kill Barbara Kralik?
wilding. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf. The Saturday Evening Post, pp. 78–81.
The Killing of Kitty Genovese 381

Manning, R., Levine, M., & Collins, A. (2007). The Kitty Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F. (1999). Gorillas in our midst:
Genovese murder and the social psychology of helping: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Per­
The parable of the 38 witnesses. American Psychologist, ception, 28, 1059–1074.
62, 555–562. Skoller, C. (2008). Twisted confessions: The true story behind
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of the Kitty Genovese and Barbara Kralik murder trials. Bloo­
Abnormal & Social Psychology, 67, 371–378. mington, IN: AuthorHouse.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Smalarz, L., Scherr, K. C., & Kassin, S. M. (2016). Miranda at 50: A
New York v. Winston Mosley (1964). Indictment Number 542- psychological analysis. Current Directions in Psychological
64 (May 28, 1964; continued to June 8, 1964). Science, 25, 455–460.
Pelonero, C. (2014). Kitty Genovese: A true account of a pub- Testagrossa, C. A. (2011, March 14). [Letter to Garry E.
lic murder and its private consequences. New York, NY: Danussi]. Dannemora, NY: NYS Division of Parole, Clinton
Skyhorse Publishing. Correctional Facility.
Rasenberger, J. (2004, February 8). Kitty, 40 years later. The New Vitello, P. (2012, October 16). George Whitmore Jr., who falsely
York Times, p. 14. confessed to 3 murders in 1964, dies at 68. The New York
Reynolds, R. (1965, July 18). Did the boy or the man kill Times, p. A29.
Barbara? Reading Eagle. Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M.,
Rosenthal, A. M. (1999). Thirty-eight witnesses. Berkeley: Univ­ & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification
ersity of California Press. (Original work published 1964) procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photo-
Shapiro, F. C. (1969). Whitmore. New York, NY: Bobbs-Merrill. spreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 1–39.