The Witness Page #4

but 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.

Forty years after

the original article appeared

the "New York Times"

reexamined their account.

They acknowledged some of

the original article's flaws

and highlighted the questions

surrounding the story.

Most of the revisionist

information

came from Joe DeMay.

A Kew Gardens resident

and amateur historian.

I sat down and I read

through the article

and when it was all through

I thought to myself

"What the heck this,

this can't make

this doesn't make

any sense at all."

If you read

through the article

the first paragraph

is crystal clear

and absolutely riveting.

For more than half an hour

38 respectable,

law-abiding citizens

in Queens watched a killer

stalk and stab a woman

in 3 separate attacks

in Kew Gardens.

Well, turns out there weren't

38 eyewitnesses at all.

The witnesses to the case,

with one or two exceptions

were ear witnesses,

not eye witnesses.

What happened is this.

There was an initial attack

on Austin Street

that was broken off,

the killer fled.

Your sister then got up

and she walked around

to the back of the building.

The people in the apartment

building could not

have seen her for more

than a couple of minutes.

When they saw him come back

the few witnesses

that were still at their

windows, Kitty was long gone

as far as they knew

she was some place safe.

So, yeah, the story

was generally correct

but in a lot of the important

details it was grossly

exaggerated and simply

not true.

When I first came upon

his website

my first reaction

was to sort of brush it off.

But then I came back

and read it very closely

and realized, "Wow, his argument

is incredibly compelling."

If the story had been reported

more accurately

it still would have been

a 2 or 3 day

maybe... maybe even 4 day story

but it would not have been

a 50 year story.

We would not still be sitting

here talking about it today.

Did anybody ever challenge

the 38 witness

38 eyewitness story?

Yeah. Not at the time.

Not in 1964.

In fact to the contrary.

Other newspapers, other

magazines, "Li-Life Magazine"

ran with it and then even

exaggerated it further.

This is Mike Wallace.

Why did 38 people fail to act?

The answer to that question

concerns every one of us

who fears perhaps that apathy

has become part

of our way of life.

The question becomes

was it worth

all the attention it got

or was it a media creation?

Oh, I think to a certain

degree it was a media creation.

No one investigated the 38.

No one followed up on it

or anything of that nature.

Do you have any feel

for why that would have been

with this case

versus any other case?

Because it was taken

seriously

by "The New York Times."

The reason I picked up on it..

...was because Abe Rosenthal

is a man I respect.

Good reporter, in a position

of authority

at "The New York Times."

I mean, "The Times" had, still

does, but back then particularly

had that kind of clout.

It's a fascinating...

troubling story.

And undoubtedly,

sold newspapers.

- Hi, is this Mr. Lelyveld?

- Yes, sir.

When did you start working

at "The Times? "

I became a reporter

in 1963, I guess.

Do you think the original

"Times" story is accurate?

- I remember feeling it was a little skimpy.

- Yeah.

That it, that it reached

its judgment quickly.

Have you ever heard

of a woman named Sophia Farrar?

No.

Sophia Farrar actually did

go down to be with her

as soon as she found out

about it.

And did the police list her

as a witness in their reports?

Yeah, she testified in court.

And she's not mentioned

in "The Times" story?

No.

Well, that's just, uh

that's inexcusable then.

The question would be

why the competition

didn't look into it.

- Hi, Richard Wald?

- Speaking.

You were the managing editor

at "The New York Herald

Tribune" in '64?

Did "The Tribune"

ever write a story

about how "The Times"

covered the story of 38?

No, I don't remember

"The Tribune" ever doing that.

Let's assume you were

a reporter on the scene.

If you had a sense

that it didn't happen

that way,

I would have assigned people to go and check.

Right.

But I don't know

any reporter

who felt that way.

- Mr. Pressman.

- Hi, Bill. How are you?

Good. I'm good.

In 1964,

I was a reporter at WNBC

and I had no first hand

knowledge of the story

but my friend Danny Meenan

covered the story.

At this point

he was doing radio

I believe for WMCA,

and, uh

among all the police reporters

I've known

and I've known many,

he was one of the best

if not the best.

He said, "The story doesn't make

any sense to me."

And he gave me an account of

uh, what he found.

And it says here,

"There were many witnesses.

"Some 30 odd in the number.

"One conclusion all seemed

to have, it was a drunken brawl

between man and wife."

Martin Gansberg, the author

of the "Page One Story"

in "The Times"

which caused the furor,

was challenged

by this irate reporter.

"Why didn't you include

in your story

"the fact that many

witnesses did not

believe a murder

was taking place? "

Gansberg replied..

"...It would have ruined

the story."

That to me is incredible.

It's curious to me why,

and I'm not trying

to blame Danny Meenan

or yourself or anybody else

but why...

how come people didn't call

"The Times" out on that?

Because it was

"The New York Times"

and Danny, you know,

he had to continue

to hold on to his job.

I don't think that he

probably was interested

in taking on Abe Rosenthal

and "The New York Times."

A couple of years passed,

I was teaching a course

and this seemed

to be something

that the class

would want to explore.

A couple of the people

in my class being enterprising

I guess you would say,

called Rosenthal.

And Rosenthal called me.

He was really angry,

he was screaming at me.

"Do you realize," said Rosenthal

"that this story has become

emblematic of a situation

in America? "

"That it's become the subject

of sociology courses

books and articles."

And I think that

that is abhorrent

to anyone

who is interested in truth.

For me to hear that,

it's just shocking

because I grew up and moved

in certain directions

based on this story

being fact.

But indeed it was

not totally fact.

Did they say why they just

sat there doing nothing

while that girl

screamed for help?

They all had

the same answer.

They didn't wanna get involved.

A young woman

stabbed 14 times

then raped

outside her building.

While 40 of her neighbors

turned up their TVs

so they couldn't

hear the screams.

If you're a witness in one of these things,

you know what you gotta do?

Put on a shirt and tie,

you gotta go down to court...

So because of a little

inconvenience

you don't wanna get involved?!

Listen, let me explain

something to you, huh?

Shut up!

You look at things

that happen in the world

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes