July 13, 2023

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, HOST: Hello everyone, and welcome to AMANPOUR AND COMPANY. Here’s what’s coming up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, you have no doubt that after the war Ukraine will become a member of NATO?

LLOYD AUSTIN, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: I have no doubt that that will happen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: Better together. I ask the Ukrainian president’s chief diplomatic adviser, Igor Zhovkha, about edging towards NATO membership and

whether controversial cluster bombs that just arrived from the U.S. will be a game-changer on the battlefield.

Then —

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The leader’s loyal confidant, trusted adviser and perhaps the most powerful women in North Korea.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: — keeping it in the family. How the North Korea supreme leader’s sister became the mastermind behind the Kim dynasty brand.

Also, ahead —

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Peter Anderson.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thomas Mulcahy.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Anthony Marrero.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Michael Sakara.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They weren’t just a statistic. They had their own story too.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: — when a serial killer stalked queer New York. I talk to the documentary makers behind HBO’s new true crime series, about bias and

homophobia in the ’90s criminal justice system.

And then —

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOESUNG LEE, CHAIR OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE: We have to reduce our emissions as rapidly as possible and as soon as

possible.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: — the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Hoesung Lee, tells Hari Sreenivasan about the imminent consequences of our

warming planet.

Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Bianna Golodryga in for Christiane Amanpour.

We begin in Ukraine, where the question today is whether the ands always justify the means. Controversial cluster bombs have just arrived from the

U.S. Ukraine’s military commander says they will give them the advantage over Russian invaders. But critics say cluster munitions, which spread

small bomblets over large areas, have also killed countless civilians in the past.

Meanwhile, away from the battlefield and on the diplomatic front, U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin tells CNN that he has “no doubt” Ukraine

will become a part of the NATO alliance, but only after Russia’s war ends.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: From a military standpoint, Mr. Secretary, how close is Ukraine to meeting NATO’s standards?

LLOYD AUSTIN, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: Well, I remember sayings that we’ll have to be darn (ph), as you know. They — a big part of their inventory is

legacy equipment. And so, in terms of training and equipping, there’s work to be. But we’re doing that work as we’re helping them as they fight this

war. And so, things have been done up to this point. There’s more that will need to be done to ensure that they have a full complement of capabilities.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, you have no doubt that after the war, Ukraine will become a member of NATO?

AUSTIN: I have no doubt that that will happen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: Meantime, Russian rhetoric hitting alarming levels today, with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov calling it a “nuclear sphere threat” if

Ukraine gets F-16 fighter jets. While no country has directly committed to providing Ukraine with the U.S.-made aircraft yet, some western allies have

agreed to start training the pilots to fly them.

Igor Zhovkha is the Ukrainian president’s chief diplomatic adviser. And he is joining us from the capital of Kyiv. Welcome back to the show.

So, let’s start with the takeaway from this NATO summit. NATO promised more security pledges, including from the G7 as well, training in F-16s, Germany

is giving more Patriot missiles. That having been said, Ukraine did not walk away with a specific invitation to join NATO or a timeline of when

that would happen. Given all of that, are you satisfied with the outcome of this summit?

IGOR ZHOVKHA, CHIEF DIPLOMATIC ADVISER TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKYY: Yes, we are satisfied with the general (INAUDIBLE) of this summit because, rightfully,

you are saying, there were several important decisions on the security guarantees, on the F-16 coalition, on the additional military package and

ammunition. And yet, with absence of the timeframe on the — of the invitation, some significant steps in NATO-Ukraine relations were admitted.

First of all, the word invitation is in the textbook of the final communique, and we received this work, and we received the understanding

from each and every ally that Ukraine should belong to NATO. Unfortunately, without timelines for the invitation, but we are on the right way.

We increased our level of cooperation to a level of NATO-Ukraine Council. And the first meet of NATO-Ukraine Council where each and every leader will

speak and each have and every one of them were saying that we do believe Ukraine will become a member of NATO, we do — we’ll render and support on

— for Ukraine on this way. We will stay with Ukraine as long as it takes.

And yes, we do understand how to go — to proceed further on. We will be preparing, practically from today, for the summit to be scheduled next year

in Washington in order to receive the positive decisions.

GOLODRYGA: Igor, we did see that upon the communique being released and without a timeline for an invitation a sharp rebuke from President

Zelenskyy, calling it absurd. And we also heard some criticism, some like criticism perhaps from Ukraine’s closest allies. The U.K. defense

secretary, Wallace, said that the West is not “Amazon.”

And then, we heard National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan actually get into a pretty heated exchange with a Ukrainian activist when he ended up

saying, listen, Ukraine needs to be a bit more grateful to its allies after this activist suggested that Russia is getting away with a lot of this war

because the United States isn’t doing all that it can.

This same activist tweeted just today, in response to that exchange, that she will have to tell her two children, which she brought up in this

exchange, to be “strategically patient.” There we see the tweet from Daria.

I know that President Zelenskyy sort of wrapped up this summit with allies all on the same page again and expressing his gratitude. But did these past

few days expose some crack in the relationship between these two countries publicly?

ZHOVKHA: No, not in a single case of any bilateral relations we’re having a crack or whatever on the very simple reason. My president, except from

having the all leaders speaking at the NATO-Ukraine Council, before the council, immediate right after the council, had a separate bilateral

meetings with U.K. prime minister, Sunak, with and Canada prime minister, Trudeau, with President Biden of U.S. President Macron, Chancellor Scholz.

And on each and every of this meeting, not only we discuss the results of the NATO summit, vis-a-vis Ukraine, and how to proceed. What are the

conditions, which (INAUDIBLE)? The conditions are, first of all, the security conditions. Certainly, Ukraine has to win the war in order to

become a full-fledged member. We never put it like this that Ukraine has to become a member to NATO before the end of the war.

But on these bilateral meetings, apart from this very important issue, we dwelled up on other important issues like further military support for my

country coming from these countries. We discussed practical military — complete military packages, and some of the countries, including the

countries you mentioned, announced additional packages.

It’s very important forming of coalition of (INAUDIBLE) was also the results of the summit. And certainly, each and every leader who talked with

my president said that there will be standing next to Ukraine. You heard President Biden saying in the press conference with my president, we are

stuck with you. So, this is very positive.

We are going together, shoulder to shoulder, with each of our allies in order to win the war. That’s the ultimate goal. We all need, only — not

only Ukraine, but all our allies. But yes, after the war, I completely agree with Secretary Austin. We might move very quickly to NATO but we have

to be prepared. And by prepared, we mean this first stage, pursuing the invitation for membership.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. And they noted that that membership would likely be expedited, once all of the criteria is met and the war officially ends. We

talked about the training now of Ukrainian pilots on F-16s. Any specifics in terms of windows F-16s will arrive ultimately in Ukraine?

ZHOVKHA: Look, very important to start this training in the fixed with the concrete dates where some of the allies and, you know, this coalition and

more than 10 countries already, it’s very logical. Before flying the plane, you need to be taught how to fly and we can calculate. I mean, the schedule

of — which needs to train all of our pilots, obviously, it will take several months.

But we will not, you know, wasting this time. So, while our pilots will be having these training and they will do it much quicker than — I mean,

according to the standards, we will not be losing any single day and every single minute and hour to talk to our partners on delivery of the machines.

So, in order to have the machines ready to be delivered immediately as the first group of pilots will be ready to operate them. It’s absolutely

(INAUDIBLE).

GOLODRYGA: As reported, those cluster munitions, those controversial cluster munitions which President Biden reluctantly agreed to provide

Ukraine with have arrived in the country. And a Ukrainian general told CNN that they “can radically change the battlefield.”

I know that there is a concern about the stock of ammunition, but talk about specifically how this cluster of ammunition and cluster bombs can aid

on the battlefield.

ZHOVKHA: Look, first of all, let’s remind ourselves the cluster munition is used by Russia immediately from the first day of the open aggression.

GOLODRYGA: Yes.

ZHOVKHA: So, I mean, you’re talking about (INAUDIBLE). I haven’t heard any protest from any other countries, which are now having their concerns —

any concerns about Russia using them.

But look, yes, we need the ammunition, you know this, we need the ammunition and we need the ammunition you are talking about. We need this

ammunition just to proceed with our counteroffensive. And this ammunition is very effective against the manpower. We will not use them in the

residential areas. We will not use them against civilians, like Russians are doing, for instance. And they are doing this from time to time, every

time.

GOLODRYGA: And western allies and journalists in the West, including CNN, have been quick to condemn Russia’s use of the cluster munitions, and many

of them targeted at civilian populations. No doubt.

ZHOVKHA: That’s what happening with Russia. But Ukraine will be using them targetedly (ph), tailor-made against — the manpower against the military

command centers or whatever. Because, look, I mean, we are liberating our territory and we are seeing, we are hearing from the press, we should

mention, well, Ukrainian counteroffensive is not that quick, is not that trepid. One my president’s comment, this is not a Hollywood movie. I mean,

you cannot, you know, jump and have it.

So, this is the tactics and this is strategy, our military will use, let them explain the (INAUDIBLE) how they use. Ukrainian politically, from our

side, is telling (INAUDIBLE), we need them to liberate our area. We will take — we will be using them with utmost carefulness and only according to

the rules of war, according to all of the Geneva conventions, unlike Russians by using them absolutely in violation of any rules.

GOLODRYGA: Igor, just moments ago Russia’s president, Putin, has said some public statements, including that new weapons supplies would further

escalate conflict in Ukraine and just worsen the situation. And in fact, in his view, won’t change anything on the battlefield, instead that they are

prepared to attack and destroy any western tanks suppled to the country and that they would be a top priority, to quote him.

And then, he also went on to threaten to withdraw from the Turkey brokered grain deal that has been up for renewal now. How seriously do you take all

of these threats from Vladimir Putin, especially given the pressure that he is under following the recent failed mutiny?

ZHOVKHA: Well, that’s the rhetoric he has to use for his population, because look at what he’s having in the last half a year is absolutely

disastrous for him. He’s losing on the battlefield. He, you know, experienced several major counteroffensives from Ukrainian armed forces

around Kharkiv and around Kherson. And now, we’re having another round of counteroffensives.

He lost, and he showed himself very weak, and his system showed itself really weak and unprepared during this Prigozhin mutiny, and we understand

that the situation is not yet over. He lost when we received yesterday the decision on the security guarantees from G7 countries. He lost because he

did manage to get the crack inside NATO, as well as previously inside the E.U.

So, yes, losing everywhere, he has to explain something to his people, to his rhetoric, we will be doing our job. We will be proceeding with the

counteroffensive and with liberating our territory, and we’ll be ever strengthening the unity with our allies.

GOLODRYGA: You’ve been talking about the unity and support from the allies, from the G7, NATO members, western alliance. That having been said,

as you know, a large part of the country, a large part of the world, the Global South, as well as the Middle East and other countries have largely

sat this war out. Have either been neutral or been very, very hesitant to weigh in and even criticized the war.

You, as a diplomatic advisor, are now assigned to the job of reaching out to these countries. Why do you think, over a year into this war, so many

still remain on the fence?

ZHOVKHA: Well, I will give you a simple example. You mentioned the Prigozhin mutiny, it was on the 24th of June, if I’m not mistaken. At this

very day, in Copenhagen, in Denmark, there was a meeting of national security advisers of Ukraine, G7 countries and some Global South countries

you mentioned, the national security adviser coming from South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, India, Turkey, were getting together in Copenhagen,

listening to Ukrainian chief of staff, Mr. Andriy Yermak, who was explaining the — Ukraine’s peace formula and why the peace in Ukraine

should be only established according to Ukraine understanding of peace, not of Russian understanding, Russian red lines or any other suggestions coming

from such countries, like China, South Africa and whatever.

And we were talking and discussing how to bring peace to my country, how to unite the International Community to get peace to Ukraine. How to take the

global peace formula summit, where not the representatives only of Europe and the Euro-Atlantic community, but yes, all those countries global

countries should be present, to be discussing among themselves and to be active and diplomat in Ukraine (INAUDIBLE) peace formula.

So, this is, I think, the best answer to any speculation that the Global South is playing with Russia or staying neutral. There is no time for

neutrality and no space for neutrality now. There is no time for any mediators. The world has to help Ukraine to bring peace to the European

continent. And definitely together we will make it possible.

GOLODRYGA: All right. Igor Zhovkha, we appreciate your time today. Thank you so much.

ZHOVKHA: Thank you.

GOLODRYGA: Well, North Korea is looking for attention to the only way it really knows how, with a ballistic missile launch that landed just short of

Japanese waters on Wednesday. The highly produced missile muscle flexing was presumably in retaliation for what it claims were U.S. spy planes over

its territory. The U.S. says its military patrols are in line with international law.

Meantime, the sister of North Korea’s bombastic dictator is emerging as a key player in the Kim dynasty. Will Ripley looks at how Kim Yo-jong became

the outspoken mastermind behind the family brand.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILL RIPLEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voiceover): A menacing milestone for North Korea’s missile program. Pyongyang’s latest ICBM launch

breaking its own record for the longest ever missile flight, a staggering 74 minutes, hurdling high above the earth at supersonic speed, hitting

6,000 kilometers before splashing down in the sea.

The massive missile’s potential striking range, the entire U.S. mainland and most rest of the world. Pyongyang’s most provocative launch in months,

coinciding with this NATO summit in Lithuania. Quickly condemned by Japan as an unacceptable threat to regional stability. South Korea’s military

ready to overwhelmingly respond.

The ICBM, a crown jewel in leader Kim Jong-un’s nuclear arsenal, protecting the power, fortune and future of the ruling Kim family. His young daughter,

Kim Ju Ae, often appearing alongside her dad, barely 10 years old, the rising star of a state propaganda campaign, carefully crafted by Kim’s

younger sister, the mastermind of the Kim family brand. The leader’s loyal confidant, trusted advisor and perhaps the most powerful woman in North

Korea.

CHUN SU-JIN, AUTHOR, “NORTH KOREAN WOMEN IN POWER: DAUGHTERS OF THE SUN”: She is the number two. Well, that is for sure. But actually, she is a very

smart lady and she actually knows that her position is secure only when her brother is secure.

RIPLEY (voiceover): Just five years ago, very few people knew of Kim Yo- jong. She stepped onto South Korean soil, the first member of North Korea’s ruling family to cross the DMZ. She carried a message of peace from

Pyongyang. North Korean athletes and cheer squads got a warm welcome in 2018 Winter Olympics.

She rose to fame as a fixture at her brothers’ side, standing silently behind Kim as he met with Former President Trump. That brief period of

diplomacy feels like a distant memory. The silent sister now a loud voice of defiance, issuing fiery statements on state media, often laced with

crude language.

This week, she threatened to shoot down U.S. spy planes, accusing them, without evidence of entering North Korean territory. Warning, in case of

repeated illegal intrusions, U.S. forces will experience a very critical flight. Past actions prove she’s not all talk.

In 2020, a dispute with South Korea ended with a bang. Kim ordered the demolition of a joint liaison office at the border, turning diplomatic

dreams into a pile of rubble.

RIPLEY: She ordered the demolition of a building, partially because she was angry that South Korea wasn’t doing enough to stop activists from

sending propaganda leaflets in balloons to the north. And she is accusing the U.S. and South Korea of having the most hostile and aggressive

behavior. Calling South Korean president, a fool, and those two countries now strengthening their military alliance, which means there could be even

stronger responses from North Korea and the second most powerful person in North Korea, Kim Yo-jong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: Our thanks to Will Ripley for that really, really powerful reporting, and interesting as well.

Well, in the United States, in the 1990s, hate crimes were on the rise and the AIDS crisis was escalating. At the same time, a serial killer was

preying upon New York City’s gay men. HBO’s new four-part documentary, “Last Call: When a Serial Killer Stalked Queer New York,” unearth the

shocking bias in the criminal justice system and spotlights how the LGBTQ community fought apathy and animosity in search of justice.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It’s in all of us, that fear of being hurt, because we’re queer.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, New York, for being so fabulous.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I remember the first gay bar I walked into, I thought, oh, my God. I’ve been missing this my entire life. It just felt like home.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Queer bars were one of the few placed where we could come and feel safe.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And then all of a sudden, everything was taken away.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Dismembered human remains were found in plastic bags along roadways outside New York City.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: Director Anthony Caronna and executive producer Howard Gertler joins the show now. Welcome, both of you.

I was riveted by this series. I watched all four episodes in one sitting, and it’s just — I couldn’t stop thinking about it. Let me start with you,

Howard, what drove you to the story?

HOWARD GERTLER, PRODUCER, “LAST CALL”: Yes. Thanks, Bianna, so much. So, you know, I first heard about the story when our producing partners at

Story Syndicates sent me a copy of the book in prepublication form, and I thought there was a real opportunity here to tell a story about the nature

of the activism that community activists engaged into combat violence. And also, to tell the stories of the victims of loved ones in a way that hadn’t

been done at the time of these killings.

GOLODRYGA: And, Anthony, this story focuses on a serial killer, a male serial killer who was preying on gay men in New York City in the 1990s. His

name was Richard Rogers. Tell us about him. I know he is behind bars now. Tell us a little bit about him.

ANTHONY CARONNA, DIRECTOR, “LAST CALL”: I mean, in all honesty, telling this story was, for me, not about the perpetrator, I purposefully didn’t

really dive into who Richard was too much. It does come up in the final episode of the show, and we do get into it a little bit. But it was more

about the lives of the victims and more about the fight that the queer community had to get investigators to care about these killings.

So, it was less about the perpetrator and more about the lives of the victims and the queer community.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. I’m glad you brought that up, because you learn about him towards the end, and there was one lifetime associate of his that you

interview. Otherwise, you spend your focus on the community as a whole, and obviously on the victims and their families. Not your typical way of

structuring a serial killer series. That seems to have been delivered on your part.

CARONNA: Yes, yes. It was incredibly deliberate. I think I actually got the pre-published manuscript of the book and I read it and I passed on the

project, at first, when it was from a different company. And then, about a year later, Howard mentioned that he was possibly working on something

called “Last Call,” and he saw it as an opportunity to possibly talk about activism in the anti-queer violence movement.

And when I read through that lens, it was clear that we had the opportunity to sort of use true crime as this trojan horse and sorts to talk about a

much, much bigger epidemic.

GOLODRYGA: And, Howard, in terms of serial killers, a lot of them have monikers and names attached to them. And this one is the Last Call killer.

In the series, you explain where that name came from. And it wasn’t received always so well, especially at the time. Can you tell us the

origins of that name?

GERTLER: Yes. You know, the origin of that moniker came up in a Mike McCleary column in one of the daily tabloids. And, you know, the activists

took great offense of that. You know, and they were feeling — like at the time, a lot of the coverage, including that column, seemed to place a lot

of the blame on the victims rather than on the perpetrator and on the need to find justice.

GOLODRYGA: And the theme of gay bashing, Anthony, runs throughout this series. In the 1990s, you do a really good job of explaining exactly what

the environment was like and what we’re “safe havens” for the LGBTQ community, and this was coming at a time when there was gay bashing and

there was a rise in the — in concern, continued concern from the ’80s with the HIV and AIDS epidemic. Why was it important for you to lay out that

landscape of when these murders took place?

CARONNA: I mean, I think it was important to definitely lay out the early ’90s and queer history, but it was more important to show how important

queer spaces are so that the audience understands the threat to them and what this serial killer was taking away, was taking away from queer people

at that time, especially during a time when AIDS was — you know, was obviously a huge issue.

This serial killer was really destroying one of the few places where queer people can go and find safety and find community and find intimacy.

GOLODRYGA: And how are these safe spaces? I mean, I’m glad that you lay out anybody that lives in New York knows that it’s almost two cities,

whether it’s uptown or downtown. And that was the case, if not more so, in the ’90s. And you focus specifically on where the serial killer preyed, and

that was on two very different bars. One was more distinguished and low- key, called the Town House on the Upper East Side that attracted more prosperous and older clientele. And the other was Five Oaks in the West

Village. Talk about these two safe spaces for the community at the time.

GERTLER: Sure. You know, the Town House is still around, a wonderful place, on the Upper East Side. And, you know, the two victims that were

picked up there, they were closeted to certain degrees, and they weren’t as connected to the larger queer community in New York, which made trying to

figure out who they were at the time and what their connections may have been a little more challenging.

The Five Oaks, sadly, is no longer around. It was on Grove Street. You know, a piano bar, very similar to a place like Marie’s Crisis, which is a

place that you should all go to as well. And —

GOLODRYGA: I’ve been there.

GERTLER: Yes. Marie’s — yes, so you know.

GOLODRYGA: We know Marie’s, yes.

GERTLER: So —

GOLODRYGA: My first apartment in New York was on Christopher and Gay Street.

GERTLER: Oh, you’re kidding me. So, you know it.

GOLODRYGA: So, watching this was just —

GERTLER: Yes.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. The whole neighborhood, I know very well.

GERTLER: Yes. So, you know, The Five Oaks was a piano bar, a very popular piano bar right down the street from Marie’s, and the victim who was picked

up there, Michael Sakara, was really popular. Everyone said, you know, if The Five Oaks was like cheers, he was the norm. You know, everybody knew

him. He was the social director of the bar, and very fondly remembered through, you know, his former partner and through one of the bartenders who

had been with him the last night he was seen at the bar.

And because of Michael’s visibility generally, and on the night of, as people will see in the third episode, that is sort of how and where the

case cracked up open much more widely.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. Because, Anthony, up and until then, it was very difficult to get any witnesses, eyewitnesses to any of these murders who could

possibly have seen this suspect and the killer, and that led most people to assume that he was very unassuming.

And I want to play a clip from — for our viewers from the series in which some clientele finally came forward that thought they had seen — and is in

relation to one of the victims, Thomas Mulcahy, at the Town House. Let’s listen to one of these eyewitnesses.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, I did look back and I did see one gentleman standing at the piano. I had not seen him before, brown hair, wearing a

polo shirt. Kind of nondescript. Two or three days later, I get a knock on my apartment door at about 6:00 in the morning, and it is detectives from

the 17th Precinct, informing me that Tom — body parts had been found scattered throughout New Jersey.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: We’ll get into the role of the police, namely the NYPD, in just a moment. But this nondescript depiction of the serial killer or the

suspect made it very difficult for police at the time, Anthony, specifically because we didn’t have the technology that they now are privy

to, with forensics and cameras.

CARONNA: Yes. You mean — I mean, I don’t want to give too much away, but there are many times within this story, over the course of four episodes,

where — and even when I was investigating it, where you get so — they got so close or they thought they were getting close, and they just — they

never quite got there. And huge gaps of time sort of passed by without them ever having any more leads, ever getting any more on this person.

So, yes, he slipped under the radar for a very, very, very long time.

GOLODRYGA: And as I mentioned, Howard, the police attitude towards the gay community either consisted of apathy or vitriol at the time. And that,

also, you focus on in the series and probably one of the factors in why these cases went unsolved for so many years. Can you talk about the

relationship between the LGBTQ community and the police officers in the City of New York at the time?

GERTLER: I mean, it was a very fraught dynamic going back to stonewall even — and before that, right? And so, what we had — you know, and at one

point in the show, we have someone in 1978 from the PBA who mentions, well, gay men can’t serve in the NYPD because sodomy is illegal.

CARONNA: Yes.

GERTLER: So, that same generation of police officer was still on the force at the time of the killings. And so, it was just a very tense dynamic where

members of the queer community did not always feel like they could rely upon NYPD to get help and justice, and oftentimes, they were afraid to go

to the police for fear of being sort of re-victimized, not believed, blamed.

CARONNA: Yes.

GERTLER: You know, one case that didn’t make it into the show, but someone recounted to us, is that a lover of theirs was abusing them and they

reported a case of domestic abuse and the cops said, oh, it’s just a lover’s quarrel. They just don’t take it — they weren’t taking it

seriously.

GOLODRYGA: And there were missed opportunities to apprehend the perpetrator as well, Anthony. As you note in the series, there was a brave

survivor who went to police and authorities sort of just, you know, treated him with disrespect, and there was an almost, you’ve got what you ask for,

result from his testimony, and the perpetrator was set free.

And you also unearth that there was a longer history with the law and this suspect, going back to the ’70s in college when his roommate had been

murdered, and I’d never even heard of this defense, but a gay panic defense actually acquitted him as well.

CARONNA: Yes. Yes. I mean, there’s — throughout the series, there are so many instances of homophobia allowing this killer to continue killing and

to elude police. Yes. It sort of all comes back to either latent homophobia or huge awareness gaps in — with police knowing about the queer community.

There’s large, large awareness gaps where they think maybe they’re just sort of solving a crime, but they actually have to know this community in

order to do the work.

GOLODRYGA: And the takeaway here is that lives could have been saved —

CARONNA: Oh, yes.

GOLODRYGA: — had some of those biases not been there. And tie it so beautifully and sadly at the same time, Howard, with current events. And

you talk about the numbers which are just startling right now. The report from the Anti-Defamation League and the group Glad (ph) reports more than

350 incidents of anti-LGBTQ violence just this summer, the Gay/Trans Panic Defense is still legal in 34 states. How is that even possible?

GERTLER: I mean, you know, one of the things that we wanted this — the story from the ’90s to illuminate is like where are we today and what our

strategies we’re addressing today? You know, one of the things we looked at was the way at the time anti-gay rhetoric could also, you know, provide

fuel for violence. And, you know, the New York City Anti-Violence Project is still doing amazing work today. And they’ve just issued yesterday, I

think, they announced a new sort of LGBTQ+ safe spaces assessment.

And we’re also living in a time period where according to the human rights campaign, I think, as of May — end of May, this year alone over 520 anti-

LGBTQ bills have been introduced in state legislatures.

GOLODRYGA: Yes.

GERTLER: And I think about 70 of them have been passed.

CARONNA: Yes.

GOLODRYGA: Well, thank you both for shining a light on such an important story that sadly continues to play out today in society. And also, I have

to say, you do such beautiful work in bringing closure and respect to these victims’ lives, after all of these years, and to their families as well,

which is probably why they agreed to sit down with you. Thank you so much.

CARONNA: Thank you.

GOLODRYGA: I really hope everyone gets a chance to watch this thriller.

GERTLER: Thank you so much.

CARONNA: Thank you so much. Thank you.

GOLODRYGA: Well, the documentary series “Last Call” continues this Sunday on HBO and Max.

Turning now to the heat waves scorching Europe. Croatians are reverting to age-old traditions like this one, smearing mud on themselves as protection

from the sun. This as the European Space Agency says we could see some of the hottest temperatures ever recorded on the continent.

Heat, it is said, is the silent killer. A startling new report found nearly 62,000 Europeans died in last year’s heat wave, and fear is growing at this

year could be worse. Dr. Hoesung Lee chairs the IPCC, the U.N. body tasked with advancing scientific knowledge on the climate crisis. And he sat down

with Hari Sreenivasan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARI SREENIVASAN, INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Dr. Hoesung Lee, thank you so much for joining us.

DR. HOESUNG LEE, CHAIR OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE: Thank you for having me.

SREENIVASAN: Let’s talk a little bit about the IPCC and the reports that you generate. Reports that are now increasingly more stern in their

warnings, more severe in telling people how significant climate change is given that you’ve watched all these reports overtime, throughout your

career, what was so significant about AR6, this report in 2023

DR. LEE: Impact of climate change — the most important one, impact of climate change is here. It is already occurring. And everywhere in the

globe and all sectors are being affected by these rising temperatures. And we expect that this very minimal increase, in terms of 0.1 degrees Celsius

increase —

SREENIVASAN: Yes.

DR. LEE: — and up to this point, compared to preindustrial levels, the (INAUDIBLE) temperature already higher by about 1.1 degrees, but this much

of increase created a tremendous impact throughout the world.

SREENIVASAN: Yes.

DR. LEE: For instance, Pakistan last year, one third of this had been country flooded. And it’s not only Pakistan, but many other regions. And it

is the human cost impact. And this report strengthened the attribution of this impacts to the human influence.

SREENIVASAN: Help people at home understand why 1.5 degrees Celsius as — why is it an important threshold? Why is two centigrade important

threshold? Because most people, when it comes to temperature, at least in the context if they can control it, they think of their thermostat. What’s

the difference between 68 and 70 degrees inside my house? Why are we so upset about this? What does 1.5- or two-degrees Celsius mean to the planet?

DR. LEE: Well, let me tell you this, we are familiar about — the long time about the earth as — what, the glacial period. And at that time, the

global temperature was about — according to the climate scientists, about five to six degrees lower than the global average of sort of this

temperature.

SREENIVASAN: So, we had an ice age when it was five to six degrees lower.

DR. LEE: Ice age. Right. OK. Now — so, 1.1-degree increase from pre- industrial is a significant increase. And first of all, this 1.1-degree increase occurred for the last about 150-year period. And the world

temperature changed a lot, but experiencing 1.1-degree temperature increase in 150-year time period, now that’s something else.

SREENIVASAN: Yes.

DR. LEE: It is the race between how fast the global climate temperature increases and how fast the humans can adapt to climate change, how fast the

nature, the ecosystems can adapt to climate change.

SREENIVASAN: Yes.

DR. LEE: And I believe the nature loses in this. I mean, ecosystems loses in this race. And also, humans are very much up to the limits to

adaptation.

SREENIVASAN: You know, I’ve heard from scientists that what we are seeing today is the result of what we put into the atmosphere 30 years ago. That

even if everybody stopped driving cars, if we just completely zeroed out carbon emissions, that this would still be getting worse and worse before

it got better, right?

So, do you think it’s even realistic that even if we started rolling in the same direction magically at this moment that we can stop ourselves from

crossing that 1.5-degree threshold much less the two?

DR. LEE: We will probably see the global — the average temperature of 1.5-degree Celsius emerging in about two decades, depending upon the

scenarios of carbon emissions in the second half of this centuries. There can be a possibility to have a temperature first going beyond 1.5 and then

turning back to 1.5 at the end of the century.

SREENIVASAN: Yes.

DR. LEE: And then, that’s the scenarios of the lowest emissions scenarios, and then other scenarios, which assumes a much higher carbon dioxide

emission is projected to have about between 2.7 and 4.4 degrees of temperature increase by 2100. So, it all depends upon the social economic

development, which is linked to the carbon dioxide emissions.

SREENIVASAN: So, if we are facing a world now where 1.1 degrees increase is giving us these wildfires, these hurricanes, these just conditions that

are harder and harder to live with, what does the world look like at 1.5 or at two if this is the trajectory that we’re headed on?

DR. LEE: The adverse impacts will be multiple, multiples times higher —

SREENIVASAN: Worse?

DR. LEE: Worse. Frequency, that will be much higher. And the intensity of the impacts will be much higher. So, the — does — an aggregate, the

impacts on ecosystems, impact on our lives, it will be much, much worse than what we see today. And that is the key messages of our scientific part

of IPCC reports.

And therefore, we have to reduce our emissions as rapidly as possible and as soon as possible so that global portal — emissions of carbon dioxide

will have to peak as early as possible, but not later than 2025. And right now, the emissions are just growing very fast.

SREENIVASAN: According to the World Meteorological Organization, over the past 50 years, we have lost 2 million people to different types of natural

disasters. whether it’s intense flooding, whether it’s massive wildfires, whether it’s typhoons and tornadoes, and hurricanes all over the place, and

it’s cost us somewhere around $4.3 trillion.

So, my question is, is that if we have that kind of information, if we are not concerned with that significant loss of life or that significant impact

to our global economy, what is going to make us listen?

DR. LEE: The impacts of rising temperature global climate have a different picture for developing countries versus developed countries in the

developed world. Much impacts can be shown in terms of loss in the value of assets, financial loss. There was some human lost there too.

But a majority of loss happening in the developing world is human cost. The human mortality in the developing world is about 15 times higher than the

regions with less vulnerable to this worsening climate change.

SREENIVASAN: Sorry. 15 times?

DR. LEE: Fifteen times.

SREENIVASAN: So, the people in, say, developing countries in Asia or Africa or along the coast, they are suffering the costs of climate change

15 times more than the developed world?

DR. LEE: In terms of human mortality.

SREENIVASAN: Human mortality.

DR. LEE: Now, it is not really attainable (ph) to convert that the cost of human mortality into monetary terms.

SREENIVASAN: Yes.

DR. LEE: But just one country or one, you know, group of individuals reducing unilaterally the carbon emissions would not do anything at all.

You know, you don’t have global reductions.

SREENIVASAN: When you talk about developing and developed nations, even the money that is coming from, say, the Global North to the Global South

has been estimated to be five to 10X less than what is needed. So, when you are in these conversations between countries, and you have a country at the

table that’s saying, look, my people are dying at much greater rates, my economy is crushed much more disproportionately than yours is, pointing to

somebody across the table who is a developed nation, who is more insulated from some of the impacts. How do you bridge that gap? Because it’s a very

legitimate question that they have is, why are we paying so much for a problem that we didn’t help create?

DR. LEE: The climate convention and climate treaty as well as the Paris Agreement have already recognized this — the differences in the impacts.

And in fact, the — all the parties to the climate convention and as well as the Paris Agreement indicated that they provide financial and

technological support to the developing countries for their mitigation and adaptation effort.

Specifically, the developed countries promised to deliver $100 billion per year for this purpose, mitigation and adaptation in developing countries.

However, as of this moment, you know, we still need to see that promises to be delivered.

SREENIVASAN: So, how do we enforce that? People sign a check, so to speak, and then when it’s time to cash it, the money is not there.

DR. LEE: Yes. There is no way to enforce such an agreement and it’s all voluntary, you know, payment. And therefore, thus the world will have to

then recognize that as long as the delay in action continues, then it is the people suffering a disproportionate share of the impacts. And those

people are not responsible ones to have created the climate change we see right now.

So, there’s a tremendous inequity involved in this process, and the world understand that, and I believe that leaders in the developing countries as

well as developed countries are trying their best to narrow that gap.

SREENIVASAN: One of the concerns, I think, people have with the IPCC reports and the meetings are that there is an opportunity there for

countries to lobby on what the final language should be. And I wonder, now that you have seen this process up close, is there something that you would

like to change about how that’s done? Because sometimes people feel like, you know what, these — some of these paragraphs or some of these sentences

had been changed by countries who have a vested interest in continuing fossil fuels, because that’s where they make money.

DR. LEE: Well, I do not speculate on the intentions of our member governments. But it is correct that the summary for policymakers is

negotiated the document. Most governments, as well as between authors in government, but important point is, the science aspect of summary for

policymakers is issued by the authors of the report.

SREENIVASAN: So, the science is not tampered with?

DR. LEE: Science is not tempered with, not tempered with at all.

SREENIVASAN: The policy recommendations are negotiable?

DR. LEE: The — how the language will be reflected in the summary for policymakers, every line scrutinized by our member governments in place for

the plenary meeting, and every world has to be there by consensus. And in that process, the authors provide a very important role, because they are

the guarantor of this scientific integrity of that sentence. So, science will not be compromised at all.

SREENIVASAN: Is there a blueprint that we can devise for how a country should go forward in the future? Is there a way that we can say to

countries, you’re not doing enough, that there are consequences to this? You agreed to X, and we see by your actions and decisions whether it’s

because you had a new political regime, whether it’s because — whatever reason, right? So, how do you have the critical and important conversation

that friends should be able still friends to say, come on, step up?

DR. LEE: Well, the IPCC mandate does not include a policy prescriptive statement.

SREENIVASAN: Should it?

DR. LEE: I think that every country has different goals and different constraints to work with.

SREENIVASAN: Yes.

DR. LEE: And also, different priorities.

SREENIVASAN: But we’re all going to breathe the same air?

DR. LEE: That’s true. But at the same time, they all — every country needs to develop economically, as well.

SREENIVASAN: So, how — your Ph.D. is in economics.

DR. LEE: Yes.

SREENIVASAN: How do you figure out a way that these less developed countries are going to suffer less and have economic sustainability?

Because their incentive is to pull themselves up out of poverty —

DR. LEE: Right.

SREENIVASAN: — and to have their basic needs covered.

DR. LEE: Right.

SREENIVASAN: Their priority is not carbon emissions. They’re like, OK, we can get to carbon emissions. I want to make sure my people are fed first.

DR. LEE: Right. For the last 10 years, we recognize that there are 18 countries who are able to reduce carbon emissions, absolute level of carbon

emissions, and at the same time increase their growth. And obviously, those countries are in that developed region.

And the lesson of this data information is that that performance can be duplicated in the developing world if the countries in the rich part of the

world provide financial support, provide technological support to the developing countries —

SREENIVASAN: Yes.

DR. LEE: — to make them achieve economic growth with less carbon footprint. Therefore, the way how the developing countries will achieve

their economic development from now on will critically determine what level of temperature the world will have, and there, the developed countries has

a key to solve this problem. Developing — let developing countries grow their economy while reducing their carbon emissions. It can be doable.

SREENIVASAN: You are going to be handing over the reins in Nairobi when the next leader is elected. You’ve got kids. You’ve got a grandchild. And I

wonder how you have a conversation, when your grandchild is old enough, and they are going to learn about climate change and they are going to learn

about what is happening, and what has already happened, and at some point, children have a tendency to look at our parents and say, why didn’t you do

more?

DR. LEE: Life consists of many priorities, and thus, life also consists of a bundle of crises. Not only climate crisis, we have energy crisis, food

crisis and, you know, public health crisis. So, you have to allocate your resources according to the — you know, the scale of the risks that you

face. And every individual makes that decision, every nation makes that decision.

And since climate change is a public goods problem, it is the government role that must be emphasized here. It is only the government can reduce the

outcome, that can fix the market system created. And let’s see what happens.

SREENIVASAN: Dr. Hoesung Lee, thank you so much for joining us.

DR. LEE: Thank you. Goodbye.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: And finally, it is hard to keep your eyes dry for this one, I dare you. This is when NFL player, Damar Hamlin, suffered a cardiac arrest

and collapsed on the field in January, so many had feared the worst.

But through a medical triumph, the Buffalo Bills safety not only evaded death, but was cleared to play football again just four months later. Well,

on Wednesday, at the ESPY Awards, an emotional Hamlin got to publicly thank those who saved his life. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAMAR HAMLIN, BUFFALO BILLS SAFETY: Please welcome this year’s recipient of the Pat Tillman Award for Service, the training staff of the Buffalo

Bills.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: A beautiful moment and a touching moment of humanity that will forever be a part of football history. Wow.

Well, that is it for now. You can always catch us online, on our podcast, and across social media. Thank you so much for watching and goodbye from

New York.