the frequency
Harper's has just posted a 2001 article by Paul Limbert Allman on the odd 1986 "What's the frequency, Kenneth" attack on Dan Rather. Allman calls Eric Mink's 1997 scoop in the Daily News that pinned the beating on a whacko named William Tager "exceedingly dubious," and instead blames a late college professor, Donald Barthelme.
It's interesting flight of fancy (that made a odd play), but Allman's account has no basis in reality. In this letter to the Times, dated Nov, 5, 2004, District Attorney Robert Morgenthau wrote:
William Tager's identity as the man who attacked Mr. Rather was established in the course of an investigation by my office.
Mr. Tager murdered Theron Montgomery, an NBC employee, by shooting him with a rifle in August 1994 near the Rockefeller Center studios of NBC's ''Today'' show. The defendant suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and had long believed that the television networks were bugging his home in North Carolina.
In the course of our prosecution, Mr. Tager made detailed statements admitting the earlier assault on Mr. Rather, who was one of a number of media figures Mr. Tager blamed for tormenting him. Mr. Tager's knowledge of nonpublic details of the attack on Mr. Rather, along with other facts and circumstances, left no doubt of his guilt. A prosecution for the assault was precluded by the statute of limitations, but Mr. Tager, now 56, was sentenced to 12 1/2 to 25 years on manslaughter and weapons charges.
posted by Derek @ 12/01/2004 11:19:00 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Don't you think it's strange that Mr. Morgenthau would go to so much trouble in response to a review of an off-off broadway play?
His attempt to close the books on Tager, in the press, when Tager was never even charged with the crime, also seems strange.
Not at all. A letter to the editor isn't much trouble, and I'm certainly glad Morgenthau took the time to put the facts on the public record. And as the D.A. wrote, the only reason Tager wasn't charged was because the statute of limitations had expired.
Morgenthau is not providing any facts regarding the Rather case. He is providing heresay, based on 'nonpublic information.' The supposed statements are not available. What is available are the facts of the Rather case, the police record, and eye-witness accounts, all of which directly contradict what the D.A. is trying to sell.
umm... a confession to law enforcement is not hearsay. I imagine if you filed a Freedom of Information Act request you could get the entire case file; all of it should be publicly available, since Tager is not going to be prosecuted.
And have you actually seen the police record - or just media accounts of it? As a reporter for 10+ years, it wouldn't surprise me if the initial media accounts had some details wrong (Two attackers vs. one attacker and one man Rather said may have accompanied the attacker).
Also, I believe there were just two eyewitnesses: Rather, who said in '97 there was "no doubt in my mind" Tager was his assailant after examining pictures; and building superintendent Robert Sestak. To my knowledge, Sestak has never commented, but perhaps you know differently?
This really strikes me as about an open-and-shut case as you can get. Motive, opportunity, a confession, identification from the victim, and a confirmed propensity for violence on the part of the suspect ... what more do you need?
I have seen the police report. There were more than two witnesses: also two women entering a cab, and the doorman who summoned Sestak. Rather himself states two attackers. He quotes them exactly, as do the witnesses. All of this needs to be erased to support the D.A.'s story of one attacker spewing gibberish. It's the multiple realities that make the story so interesting. I admire your certainty but it may not be as certain as you think.Here I must depart but thank you for an interesting exchange.
Okay, it seems you actually know more than me on this. I probably should have left myself a little wiggle-room rather than expressing absolute certainty. Without hearing a detailed presentation on why not to believe the D.A., of course I'm inclined to do so, but I'll certainly acknowledge the possibility I was in error.
(But one wonders - how many people have read the police reports?!? The people you meet in the blogosphere ... who could this mystery commenter be? Allman himself? I'm sure I'll never know...)
Post a Comment
<< Home