This page was created by Anonymous.
The Public Hearing of the MCCH's Subcommittee on Crime (May 18)
The MCCH heard the testimony of three additional eyewitnesses to the killing of Lloyd Hobbs on May 18, as well as further information about the items the boy had allegedly stolen. Marshall Pfifer and Warren Wright testified at the hearing, while Clarence Wilson reported the testimony of John Bennett, who was too sick to attend the hearing. All three men told the same story as Malloy, Moore and Pitts had in the earlier hearing: Hobbs was not carrying anything and McInerney had not called out for him to stop before shooting him. Pfifer had watched from the same corner as the earlier witnesses, whereas Wright and Bennett saw those events from different perspectives. Wright was at the entrance to the apartments above 2150 7th Avenue, south of the automobile supply store, while Bennett was in 201 West 128th Street, toward which Hobbs was running when McInerney shot him. While their testimony did not include any new information about the killing of Hobbs, it was new evidence that provided a basis for presenting the case to the grand jury again. Detective O’Brien testified for the second time, bringing with him the horn and socket set that police alleged Hobbs had taken from the automobile supply store but which none of the eyewitnesses had seen in his possession. O’Brien repeatedly denied knowledge of when the items were turned over to the property clerk, frustrating Hays’ efforts to elicit testimony that McInerney had them for nineteen days after he arrested Hobbs, which James Tartar, the MCCH investigator, had established. While that long interval gave the patrolman the opportunity to have obtained the items after he arrested the boy to justify the shooting, O’Brien also for the first time reported that McInerney’s had noted recovered items in the arrest record on March 20. (While that evidence apparently confirmed that the patrolman had not obtained the items later to help justify shooting Hobbs, Tartar would later claim that the record had been altered to add that information). Black newspapers the New York Age and Afro-American again reported this testimony in more detail than the white press (this issue of the New York Amsterdam News has not survived), but only the New York World-Telegram mentioned all three eyewitnesses. Pfifer also appeared in the New York Age and New York Times, whereas the Home News and the New York Sun mentioned only Wright. Who had possession of the allegedly stolen items was discussed in both Black newspapers, the New York World-Telegram, New York Times and Home News (without mentioning O’Brien in the Afro-American and New York World-Telegram). Only the New York World-Telegram dramatized that evidence, reporting, “One of the mysteries in the case is the appearance several days ago after Hobbs death of loot of which there had been no record at the time he was shot.” Which MCCH members heard this testimony was not entirely clear. MCCH records identified only Hays, Villard, Roberts, Robinson and Randolph as being at this hearing, the smallest group to attend the subcommittee on crime’s hearings. An audience member was also recorded in the transcript as identifying Grimley as also present.
The effect of the audience interventions in this hearing are more difficult to determine than in the preceding hearings. The New York Age described the audience as creating “incessant confusion,” suggesting that its journalist no longer perceived the interventions as contributing to what the MCCH learned from the testimony. The New York Herald Tribune also saw less significance in the audience’s behavior, presenting as just the latest example of the “turbulence at almost every session.” Other white newspapers reported the hearing as similar to those that preceded it without those judgments, “one of the most stormy” according to the New York Post and the “liveliest” in the assessment of the Home News. Charles Romney’s role in disrupting the hearing was also treated as less significant by the New York Herald Tribune, as what he had done “on several previous occasions.” MCCH members had also heard enough from Romney. Villard’s suggestion that he was taking too much time going over Smith’s testimony about when Rivera was apprehended led to an outburst from Romney attacking the MCCH for protecting witnesses (which was not recorded in the transcript). After a recess, the MCCH members decided that Romney would no longer be allowed to question witnesses, holding to that position over objections from the audience. At the same time, Hays allowed other audience members to question Smith. Just who they were is not always recorded in the transcript or reported in the press, but Fannie Horowitz and Mrs Burroughs were identified. Rev. Robinson also took up the issue of whether Rivera was the boy who had been in the store that audience members had introduced in the hearings on March 30 and April 6. He questioned Smith about his identification of Rivera for some time before Hays declared the issue resolved. Hays did however have James Tartar, the MCCH investigator, testify that no boy ten years old or younger had been treated for injuries at Harlem Hospital to further confirm the identification of Rivera.
If Hays did not adopt the suspicion of Rivera promoted by audience members, he did take up the critical stance toward Lieutenant Battle that the audience had displayed at the previous hearing. His criticism of Battle for not stopping warrantless searches brought applause from the audience, reported by the Home News and New York Age. Hays also turned to the audience to confirm allegations that police stopped residents on the street and searched them for numbers, slips from the form of gambling prevalent in Harlem. Twenty-five people stood, dramatizing the claims about harassment. Hays challenged Inspector Di Martini and Captain Rothengast about those illegal practices. As a result, criticism of police was again the headline to stories in the New York Times, Home News, New York World-Telegram, Afro-American and New York Age. Thanks to the reactions of the audience, the role of the police in the events of the disorder would have been at the front of Hays' mind when he turned to drafting of the subcommittee’s report immediately after the hearing.
This page has paths:
This page has tags:
This page references:
- "Police Brutality Scored at Harlem Riot Inquiry," New York Age, May 25, 1935, 1.
- "Valentine Promises Inquiry as Two Deny Slain Negro Youth Had Loot," New York World-Telegram, May 18, 1935, 1 [clipping].
- "Harlem Cops Jeered by Spectators at Stormy Session of Inquiry Into Riot," Home News, May 19, 1935, 3.
- "Hays Chides Police at Harlem Inquiry," New York Times, May 19, 1935, 30.
- "Hays Suggests Negroes Unite to Save Rights," New York American, May 19, 1935 [clipping].
- "3 Disturbances Compel Harlem Inquiry Recesses," New York Herald Tribune, May 19, 1935, 3.
- "Riot Inquiry Thrown in Uproar," New York Sun, May 18, 1935 [clipping].
- "Dixie Drawl Halts Harlem Riot Inquiry," Daily News, May 19, 1935, 10.
- "Harlem Prober Lashes At Dodge," New York Post, May 18, 1935 [clipping].
- "Lt. Battle on Grill at Police Brutality Hearing," Afro-American, May 25, 1935, 12.
- Public Hearings - Riot (May 1935), 27, Subject Files, Box 410, Folder 7 (Roll 195), Records of Mayor Fiorello H. La Guardia, 1934-1945 (New York City Municipal Archives).
- Public Hearings - Riot (May 1935), 22-23, Subject Files, Box 410, Folder 7 (Roll 195), Records of Mayor Fiorello H. La Guardia, 1934-1945 (New York City Municipal Archives).
- Public Hearings - Riot (May 1935), 50, Subject Files, Box 410, Folder 7 (Roll 195), Records of Mayor Fiorello H. La Guardia, 1934-1945 (New York City Municipal Archives).
- "Dates and Attendance of Meetings," Mayor's Committee on Conditions in Harlem: Agendas, Box 32, Folder 6 (Roll 170), Records of Mayor Fiorello H. La Guardia, 1934-1945 (New York City Municipal Archives).