This book is receiving a lot of reaction - In sum it claims that Matthews Shepard was a low level meth dealer and was a robbery target by two other meth dealers. In essence it claims the whole “gay panic” hate crime scenario was cobbled together after the fact.
The author is gay and has been researching the case for over 20 years, so it does not seem (on the face of it) he would have a particular agenda to present Shepard’s role in the case negatively.
Has anyone read this book? Is the author’s argument plausible? In looking at the linked excerpt if even part of what he is relaying is true it does not sound like what we know about Shepard’s death is at all accurate.
I don’t know enough about the specifics of the case to comment on the claims made in the book, but the agenda is pretty obvious: to sell books. He’s not going to get much traction with a book telling the same story that’s been told before – that this was a hate crime. This completely new and different take is going to get him a ton of free publicity.
The Advocate further notes that Jiminez also claims that Shepard and one of his killers (McKinney) had had sex upon occasion, and that at least one witness reported that both killers were regular patrons of a gay bar.
I have not read the book, and I have no knowledge as to the author’s credibility. Media Matters is presenting the book as a right-wing conspiracy, but their rebuttal is very ad hominem.
Does the book provide citations that can be independently verified? That’s one clue whether it’s at least defensibly accurate.
In any case, I’m not sure it makes that much difference to the long-term implications of these events, except to the family and those who want to hold Shepard up as a martyr. The “gay panic” defense was made up in any case, and what was most offensive to me is that they thought it would get them off the hook. “Hey, yeah, we killed this guy, but only because he came on to us” as if that’s supposed to be a defense. Whatever their real motivation for the murder, their victim didn’t deserve to be murdered and they wouldn’t deserve to get off even if they really did have those “gay panic” feelings.
Roddy
That excerpt reads really strange for a non-fiction book, especially the part at the truckstop in Western Wyoming. He’s interviewing some random guy in a parking lot and suddenly he’s being ambushed? What possible reason would someone have for ambushing a writer in the middle of nowhere?
This reads like a work of fiction.
Anyway, it seems like it is being pushed by right-wing sources. I first heard of this on a right-wing radio show last week.
P.S. The 20/20 segment mentioned was produced by the guy who wrote the book.
It does make a certain amount of sense - if you’re standing there with a body at your feet and you realize you’re going to be linked to the murder, trying to come up with a scenario that lessens your guilt is an obvious move. “We beat him to death because he was out-selling us on meth” isn’t going to win any jury hearts; in a twisted way, in Colorado in 1998, “he came on to us and we panicked” almost sounds like a plausible excuse. But in the end it wasn’t and if it was staged or made up, it backfired in a huge way.
Having had time to read the link, I have to say it pinged my bullshit radar, too. The cliche-spouting nameless cop offering cryptic warnings at the end was a bit much. Felt a bit like a Dan Brown novel.
That’s a good point, but a lot of the prosecution’s case came from Russell Henderson testifying against his accomplice. At that point, if there were a drug connection between them and Shepard, I’d expect it to come out. The prosecution was looking for evidence showing premeditation, so they could prove 1st degree murder. Plus, prosecutors love adding drug offenses to other crimes - it make it even easier to put people away for a looooong time. It seems unlikely to me that the prosecutor would pass on the opportunity to bring that in, if they thought there was any chance of making it stick.
Oh yeah. That was difficult to read and take seriously.
Renowned prosecutor Cal Rerucha gingerly stroked his Harris Tweed jacket. His smile gleamed like the paint on a new Jaguar XJ XJL Supersport Edition. “What happened to Matthew Shepard was not a hate crime,” he winced, eyes smouldering like something being cooked on barbecue smoking cooker. “The Methamphetamine trade has made Wyoming revert to the lawless anarchy of the Old West, when there were no laws, and anarchy reigned, but recently, and here in Wyoming,” he winced.
I always felt that the story immediately took on a political life of its own and that the details were being glossed over. Political correctness was going full bore by then. Unfortunately there’s really no going back regardless of what is or isn’t true. There are probably still textbooks today that still state as fact the urban legend that Dr. Charles Drew, who both greatly advanced hematology and was black, bleed to death in a car accident because the southern hospital was ‘whites only’. The story is complete nonsense but it fits too well into the memories of those that want to believe it.
Me personally, I think the guy’s (at least partially) right. The whole ‘hate crime’ story was drenched in emotion and had inconsistencies right from the get go…
The 20/20 segment was produced by the author (Stephen Jimenez) of this same book; it’s been kind of an obsession of his. His motivation for presenting Shepard’s case negatively might come from the fact that he’s good friends with Russell Henderson’s defense attorney.
A drug connection was never suggested by anyone at the trial, and no one other than Jimenez has ever suggested a drug connection (and Jimenez has never presented any evidence of one).
The suggestion that Shepard and McKinney had sex on occasion is a new one, one that McKinney vehemently denies.
This whole drug theme does have a ready-made audience among groups who don’t believe hate crimes exist, or believe that the victim is pretty much asking for it.
That’s funny, because I had the exact same feeling when I read it yesterday afternoon. The truckstop scene made no sense, but the cop’s cliches were just too much for me to believe.
In case anyone is wondering (as I did), Charles Drew died in a car accident. He was driving, but tired after a long night of operating, and careened off the road.
As far as the Shepard case, unless we find out that the author is donating all profits to charity, I’m going to assume the lurid details are mostly fiction.