Like I posted above, people can say anything. Doesn’t make it the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
And the whole “drug” defense was not used until two years after the conviction of these murderers. Why wasn’t it brought up in their first trial??
I’ll add that if one of the killers thought “we killed him because he was gay and we were offended he came on to us” would prove a socially-acceptable defense in a capital case…well, the idea that anyone could conclude that is, in itself, a reason to consider him a martyr of social justice movements.
Note at the time Wyoming was criticized for not having a hate crime law, but both defendants were charged under first-degree murder, meaning that the two defendants were eligible for the death penalty, so that there was little that a hate crime multiplier would have added.
Henderson decided to testify to avoid the death penalty. McKinney was convicted of felony murder and given two life terms at the request of Shepard’s family. He avoided the Death penalty only because of Shepard’s father.
I don’t know what people think would be a more serious charge than first degree murder. Robbery was an additional charge, and there were no stimulants in Shepard’s system so that theory is a conspiracy theory on the same level as a claim that the earth is flat.
Thanks for the additional information. I was trying to rebut the notion that the police and prosecutors didn’t consider Shepard’s murder to be motivated by anti-gay animus. There was no incentive to bring that in as it didn’t add to the strength of the case.
They also didn’t bring it up for the same reason the Defense did, it is risky that the jury may be biased against homosexuals. As robbery qualified the crime as the most serious form of murder it wouldn’t have been advantageous at all for the state to bring it up.
Right. We’re in agreement and thanks for making that specific point.
Because there was nothing to it.
For example, the autopsy of Matthew Shepard showed no drugs in his system. (I believe even the alcohol from drinks the night before had mostly been processed by his body while he hung on the fence those hours.)
The reason they tied him to a fence and took his shoes is so he couldn’t escape before they went to his house and robbed that too. That is what they were doing when they got in the fight with the hispanics, looking for Shepard’s house to rob.
The gay panic defense was to provide an explanation that did not include premeditation. Luring Shepard into the truck with the intent to rob and kill him shows premeditation and thus makes the likely outcome the death penalty. There was never a question in the trial as to whether the defendant was guilty, it was if the death penalty would be imposed.
“Enjoying threesomes” is not indicative of bisexuality any more than watching straight porn is. McKinney denied having had sexual encounters with men in his police interview.
I think it’s certainly fair to question whether Shepard’s death was really an anti-gay hate crime (Jiminez himself is gay). However, there’s no reason to question its significance. His murder galvanized the nation. Is he an “ideal” figurehead? No, but there’s no such thing.
Pre-meditation is not required for Murder in the first degree in Wyoming.
The gay panic claim is a temporary insanity claim.
Note that outside of one individual who made up claims, no other source involved with this case believes this conspiracy theory.
Oh, this is ridiculous. He could never have ‘escaped’ at all; he was beaten so badly that his skull was crushed in multiple places, blood was running out of his ear, and he was already in a coma (which he never came out of).
Twenty years later, I get so tired of people still trying to justify or ‘explain’ the actions of these murderers!
Please do explain what “the reason” was that they also tortured him by burning before leaving him to die.
Nah, not a hate crime at all, merely ordinary robbery with violence, nothing to see here.
No, actually there were no burn marks on his body.
The police officers that first freed his body thought they saw burn marks, but these were later found to be welts & bruises from the beating with a gun & fists. The autopsy & medical records don’t have any mention of burns.
Harvey Milk is certainly closer to the ideal.
…and you can take to the bank that were he to be the one being interred at the National Cathedral there would be people questioning why should he deserve it.
It doesn’t matter if McKinney was closeted, bi or gay. He personally chose to mount a defense that rested on the idea that homophobia was legitimate and justified.
A belief that homophobia is legitimate and justified is why particular groups have chosen to push this myth today. The reason he is a good example is due to those facts alone.
Are there any other gay figures you think should be interred there?
Harvey Milk, as a Navy veteran, would more likely be at Arlington National Cemetery. And as a Jew, he wouldn’t want to be in a Cathedral.
Anyway, his body was cremated, and his ashes scattered in San Francisco Bay, mostly.
I think the standard is “galvanizing victims of anti-gay hate crimes.” Otherwise, I’d be cool with William Burroughs, Allen Ginsburg, Duke Ellington, Johnny Mercer, James Hoban or Lou Reed, all of whom contributed greatly and uniquely to the American culture. What other parameters are you suggesting?