The Alice Crimmins Case Read online

  THE ALICE CRIMMINS CASE

  KENNETH GROSS

  ALFRED A. KNOPF NEW YORK

  THIS IS A BORZOI BOOK PUBLISHED BY ALFRED A. KNOPF, INC.

  Copyright © 1975 by Kenneth Gross

  All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. Published in the United States by Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, and simultaneously in Canada by Random House of Canada Limited, Toronto. Distributed by Random House, Inc., New York.

  Manufactured in the United States of America

  For Risa and Leslie

  “What sort of things do you remember best?” Alice ventured to ask.

  “Oh, things that happened the week after next,” the Queen replied in a careless tone. “For instance, now,” she went on . . . “there’s the King’s Messenger. He’s in prison now, being punished: and the trial doesn’t even begin till next Wednesday: and of course the crime comes last of all.”

  “Suppose he never commits the crime?” said Alice.

  “That would be all the better, wouldn’t it?” the Queen said.

  —LEWIS CARROLL,

  Through the Looking-Glass

  INTRODUCTION

  One steamy night in the summer of 1965, when I was a young reporter for the New York Post, I was assigned to “cover” a station house in Fresh Meadows, Queens, where the police were investigating the murder of two children. It was a routine assignment—I was to sit outside the station house during the night, waiting to see if the case would be broken. The regular reporters had filed their overnight stories and gone home. It was understood that nothing was expected of me unless the murders were solved. I was to dull my imagination because it would be inconvenient to interrupt the story that had already been filed and set for the next day. For twelve hours a newspaper’s editors hoped that the version they were committed to would hold. Until the edition was on the street, one brief radio bulletin could make it obsolete and seem foolish. Reporting, I was beginning to discover, was largely a matter of waiting and self-defense.

  The gray veteran police reporters slouched possessively against the squad cars in the street. They were a special breed, balancing loyalty to a newspaper against an affinity for cops. There was a particular pallor to these men, who dressed like detectives and radiated a kind of insider’s insolence. They were proud of their techniques—they had already found the nearest telephones, impressed the local merchants and residents with their importance, and now waited patiently for some detective to feed them a fresh scrap of information. The hoods of the police cruisers were cluttered with cold coffee containers. In time, a detective broke away from a pack of his colleagues and waited until one of the trusted veterans sidled over for a brief exchange. In the established ritual, the veteran passed along bits of what he had been told to the newer men, then headed for the telephone with his richer version. It struck me, as we stood helplessly on the sidewalk, that we were at the mercy of the detectives. And the word that was filtering out from this precinct was that Alice Crimmins was guilty and it was simply a matter of time until she cracked.

  What was particularly treacherous about the process was its elusive effect. The newspapermen would salt the accusation into conversations with editors at their home offices. Editors are always dredging reporters for spicier gossip, even when it cannot be printed. Editors are expected to know more than they print. They obtain the material from reporters, who are then credited with a kind of mystical expertise. The reporters get the word from detectives, who may be trying to manipulate public opinion, impress superiors, or apply pressure to a suspect. Whether or not the specific accusation sees daylight, it poisons the coverage. And the process all hangs on the thread of a subtle code—the editor does not challenge the reporter too closely because the reporter has privileged sources. The editor finds it comfortable to believe that the reporter is in intimate contact with policemen who must be protected. The reporter does not question the detective too closely for fear of drying up his source.

  The editor would like to believe that the reporter knows—really knows—something special. The reporter is convinced that the detective has complete access to the facts of the case. The detective is suspicious of the reporter; he worries that the reporter knows too much to be manipulated and is only looking for information critical of the police. What takes place are shadowy conversations in which each party tries to find out how much the other one knows, while suggesting his own familiarity with the facts. This makes for exaggeration arid error. There grows a fund of “common knowledge” which never has to be proven and is accepted by those who want to demonstrate their connection with the case.

  In 1965, the “common knowledge” that Alice Crimmins had killed her children was burnished with rumors of scandal. This mother had slept around indiscriminately. There were not many women police reporters that season, and it would have taken extraordinary courage for one to go against the boys’ explanation. Like some black policemen, women had to be tougher on their own to prove themselves.

  So, that sticky summer night I was told to leave the station house and get over to the woman’s apartment with a photographer. She was expected home to feed her dog, and my assignment was to watch. There were a dozen newsmen and photographers standing on the mall outside her apartment when she appeared on the arm of her estranged husband. The flashbulbs flickered in her face like a swarm of fireflies. She sobbed and her husband begged the photographers to stop. They persisted, following her to the door and waiting until she came out, when their lights pecked at her again.

  “Why?” I asked one photographer.

  “The bitch killed her kids!” he replied.

  It was exactly what a detective had told us an hour earlier. The same detective had said she was a “cold” woman who never cried. The photographer merely repeated what he had been told.

  As her car pulled out of the parking lot, a photographer maliciously popped his light in the windshield, blinding the driver. He made no attempt to aim or focus.

  And the only thing we knew for certain was that Alice Crimmins had just lost her two children.

  In time the case receded in my mind. I had other assignments, and I harbored the sloppy assumption that the police couldn’t always be wrong. I was vaguely aware of a trial, but the details were a blur. Through the years, what I knew about the case was punctuated by the persistent whisper of guilt. Lawyers, secretaries, housewives, public officials would repeat rumors they had picked up somewhere and pollinated somewhere else.

  In 1971, working for Newsday, I was assigned to write a magazine article about Alice Crimmins. One detective called and told me she was guilty, that there were incriminating statements which could never be introduced at a trial. But when I tried to pin down that assertion, I found there were no corrobative tapes.

  Finally, Alice Crimmins decided to grant me an interview. She had been isolated from the press from the beginning, at first under the advice of her attorney and later because of the momentum of bad publicity. She had never allowed an interview of any depth or duration, and it was her attorney’s opinion that she should now counter the negative image. The attorney had heard that I was open-minded and decided to trust me. I spent one afternoon talking with her and there were later interviews.

  What impressed me was the difference between the person and the public image. Alice Crimmins was shy, not stridently aggressive. She explained her estrangement from the press: she wanted her vindication in a courtroom, not in a newspaper. The courts and prosecuting attorney are charged with maintaining the sanctity of the courtroom, but in this situation they were using extralegal methods, while Alice Crimmins insisted on the law.

  As I began exa
mining the details of the case, I was not able to satisfy myself about her guilt. The purported evidence was always buttressed by prejudice and fear. Whether Alice Crimmins was a nice person or someone morally beyond redemption, the law was supposed to be administered without fear or favor. There are times, however, when threats to society are masked behind evasions or couched in acceptable excess. The Alice Crimmins case, I came to believe, was perceived as frightening because the women’s movement was just coming into existence when the case broke, and the implications—a housewife grown rebellious and out of control—terrified those who felt a stake in maintaining the status quo. Through the late 1960s and early 1970s the most advanced feminists failed to grasp the significance of Alice Crimmins. Many shrank from one of the questions raised—whether motherhood is an authentic role for some women.

  The sexist bias in the case was impossible to escape. Her social habits were permanently grafted onto the central question of her guilt or innocence. Whenever I raised the possibility of her innocence, my friends had a neat explanation: I was in love with Alice Crimmins.

  When I began to work actively on this book, I was constantly asked: “Is she guilty?” as if I possessed some special insight. The question struck me hardest when it was raised by lawyers and prosecutors and judges with connections to the case. After all the investigation over the years, there remained that single haunting question: “Do you think she did it?”

  It was troublesome but, from the standpoint of the law, beside the point. The technical questions of guilt and innocence are intended to be resolved in a courtroom, a place where passions are supposed to be replaced by logic. The formality of the courtroom is meant to satisfy the cheaper doubts and the needs for revenge and vindication. The law demands suspension of simple curiosity. The rules and rituals are designed to protect against unsupported gossip and prejudice. It is, perhaps, human to want an answer. But there are mysteries incapable of solution. The easiest answer may be wrong. The truth may lie outside the known possibilities.

  There were problems in researching this book. Officials who had never been shy to pronounce Alice Crimmins guilty were reluctant to explore their own roles. They retreated behind technical codes of silence, codes that had been conveniently ignored when that served their interests. And some people were ashamed of what had happened.

  There was one man whose sense of outrage had never dimmed: Harold Harrison, Alice’s first attorney. He was brutally honest, even about himself. He introduced me to people who had refused earlier to be interviewed. I am grateful. I should also thank John Cummings and Henry Shankman, who know what they did.

  Some policemen, notably Phil Brady, came forward and revealed themselves candidly. Others required protection, and their names and circumstances have been altered to avoid injury. Some active policemen, prosecutors, and judges have been disguised to protect careers. There are men and women whose lives collided with Alice Crimmins’ and whose marriages would be affected if they were identified. The names have been changed, but the fabric of the story is intact. There are enough broken lives in Queens.

  1

  She slapped off the alarm clock and heard the sound of the air-conditioner. And the silence. It was morning and the woman of the house woke up with an abrupt feeling of dislocation . . . listening to the mechanical sound of an air-conditioner instead of breathing. When she had separated from her husband months earlier, she had replaced him in the bedroom with an air-conditioner. When she awoke, she still felt a mixture of strangeness and relief.

  She moved quickly in the morning, without a sluggish aftermath of sleep, as if keeping an urgent rendezvous. She washed, hardly staring at her face in the mirror. It was an interesting face, with powerful internal animation. Some of her friends were more beautiful in a classic, brittle way. Their bones might photograph better, their skin would show smoother texture. But cameras couldn’t capture what flashed behind this woman’s amber eyes. She radiated something elusive, as if she harbored and was privately amused by some vast secret. At the lounges and bars where women tested themselves insatiably, this woman had a life force more compelling than most of her peers.

  Hers was not a simple appeal. There was a suggestion of vulnerability, a quality that made men fumble to light her cigarette or fetch her drink. For some women, desirability was a gift. They accepted their own good looks with a kind of regal carelessness—living off the interest as the very wealthy do who never touch capital and never dream that it could be squandered away or used up. Not this woman.

  She worked quickly on her makeup. It was an important part of her, the makeup. It would be misunderstood later, dismissed as cold vanity. But when she was a young girl in the pale convent schools of the Bronx her face had always been scrubbed raw. Makeup was not for good Catholic girls. The deep-pitted scars of adolescent acne had burrowed into her a feeling of permanent inferiority. Later, after her marriage collapsed and she left that rigid system of values, she would cloak her face in pancake, as if all modesty rested on that mask. She would apply the eyeshadows and liners with the devotion of an acolyte. It would take her the better part of an hour each day to perform this new devotion. But the great affliction would be disguised with expert care, and no one would take her for less than a flawless beauty. The scars would remain on her psyche and she would never appear in public without first going through the makeup ritual. Only when she had finished each section would she look at the complete face instead of the working fragments. Only then would she look at Alice Crimmins.

  It was Wednesday, July 14, 1965. Lyndon Johnson had just announced that the United States was taking a decisive step into Vietnam, but another shadow had captured the headlines: Adlai Stevenson had fallen dead of a heart attack on a London street corner, and his photograph—taken moments before he was stricken—gave a final weak smile from the front pages of New York’s newspapers. To some, Stevenson’s passing seemed to signal an end to public grace. Change and resistance to change were in the air. On a street corner in Queens—one of New York City’s two boroughs east of the East River—Jimmy Jemail, the Daily News Inquiring Fotographer, was stopping people to pose the day’s typically loaded question. This particular day Jemail asked how people felt about the use of children in street demonstrations. In Queens, to which parents had fled to escape urban streets, such a question touched raw nerves. “I feel strongly that children should not be involved in violence of any kind,” Ella Klein, a florist with an uncomplicated smile, told Jemail. “Parents may be led to believe there will be no violence in a demonstration, but how do you know? If there is violence, it will make an unfavorable impression on the children that will last all their lives.”

  Such an explanation was easier to handle than the complicated questions raised by the demonstrations themselves—civil rights, peace. It lifted the issue beyond the reach of critics. Who could challenge a parent’s impulse to protect a child?

  In the summer of 1965 the questions of change, protest, and violence were compressed into the contest for the Mayoralty of New York City—a post mythically held to be the second most important job in the nation. Only the Presidency was said to be more potent. The truth was more elusive. The Mayor of New York commanded great access to the media. The city was located in the ganglia of magazine, newspaper, and network headquarters. Yet the job had a strange draining effect on political power. New York City Mayors would retire in disgrace or impotence, somehow never able to use their high visibility to launch themselves into national office.

  For more than a decade the Mayoralty had been held by Robert Ferdinand Wagner, son of one of the state’s most illustrious Senators. Wagner had never quite measured up to his father, who was the author of farsighted labor legislation and a man of infectious charm. Wagner the son was a short man with puffy eyes and droning syntax. By the sheer force of his ancestry he could lull New Yorkers into a sense that slippery values could be held and that loss of control could be checked. But Bob Wagner had undergone a shattering ordeal and was e
xhausted. His wife, Susan, had died in 1964 after a withdrawn, lingering contest with cancer. He would recoup his ambition in private.

  Traditionally, the campaign for the Mayoralty would begin in earnest after Labor Day, but the Democrats were already trying to elbow each other out of the way. Abraham Beame, a feisty little accountant, was plunging head first into the lineup like a half-crazed halfback. Frank Hogan, the remote Manhattan District Attorney, was testing the wind from his lofty perch with sanitized straws that never seemed to touch his own hands.

  The apparent front runner was the dignified City Council President, Paul Screvane, a clubhouse politician who had graduated into sudden importance. There was a strange paradox to Paul Screvane. Blessed with a halo of gray hair and an imperial carriage, he had the look of breeding. And yet his background was a scramble with tough-talking New York City union leaders and building contractors. Somehow, even when he was Sanitation Commissioner and in the crossfire from both sides, he had managed to keep their friendship. Now he had the support of Robert Wagner. Screvane and Wagner were more than political cronies. During Susan’s illness Screvane had befriended Wagner and, with his natural heartiness, drawn the Mayor into social distractions.

  Alice Crimmins made one final appraisal in the bathroom mirror. Her fresh slacks and blouse were tight enough to suggest restrained sensuality—a mood Alice always tried to evoke. On this particular day it might have occurred to some women to appear subdued. She was to meet her attorney to plot strategy in a looming custody fight over her children. Her estranged husband, Eddie, had brought the suit. Not that Alice had any doubt that she would retain custody of the two children—Eddie, Jr., a chubby five-year-old, and his sparkling sister, Alice, one year younger, whom everyone called Missy.