Right-wing pundits, radio hosts and bloggers are celebrating a
brand new book purporting to demonstrate that Matthew Shepard’s brutal
1998 murder in Wyoming was not an anti-gay hate crime, but rather a
simple drug-motivated crime fueled by crystal methamphetamine. The book
is capped by the sensational, and utterly unproven, claim that Shepard
had previously engaged in gay sex with his eventual murderer.
These are not new claims — the allegation that the murder was
primarily drug-fueled was in fact aired during the trial of Shepard’s
killers. Similarly, claims that the chief perpetrator, Aaron McKinney,
had had sex with Shepard, had previously surfaced. But McKinney has
angrily denied those claims, and they are based on nothing more than hearsay evidence from questionable witnesses.
The book’s central assertions, in fact, are both factually flawed
and, at bottom, profoundly irrelevant. They are also essentially
recycled.
Indeed,
The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths About the Murder of Matthew Shepard is the work of Stephen Jimenez, one of the producers of an
ABC News “20/20” report in 2004 that was widely criticized by
other journalists,
gay-rights organizations and
the Shepard family
for its factual inaccuracies and distortions, as well as its clear
bias. For instance, ABC News failed to reveal to its viewers that
Jimenez was
a longtime friend of the defense attorney for McKinney co-defendant Russell Henderson who,
when he pitched the story to ABC producers, had already reached his sensational conclusions — long before ABC’s reporters had begun doing actual investigative work.
A
number of right-wing pundits have
seized upon Jimenez’s book,
which was just published on Sept. 24, to claim that the much of the
justification for the nation’s anti-gay hate-crime laws — including the
federal Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act,
signed into law by President Obama in 2009 — is little more than a
fabric of lies. These pundits claim that the Shepard “mythology” has
been used to fuel a “grievance industry” that is based on the supposedly
false notion that hate crimes, in particular anti-LGBT hate crimes, are
widespread.
Even before taking on that claim, it should be noted that regardless
of the realities of the Shepard case and its many complexities, it was
only a single if symbolically galvanizing case.
That said, the greater reality, denied by those who complain of a “grievance industry,” is that
gay people are the most targeted minority in America for hate crime.
According to a detailed analysis of FBI national hate crime statistics
by the Southern Poverty Law Center, gay people are more than twice as
likely to be attacked in a violent hate crime as black people or Jews,
more than four times as likely as Muslims, and some 14 times as likely
as Latinos.
Moreover, these FBI statistics
have been well known for some time to vastly underreport the actual levels of hate crime for a variety of reasons.
Recent studies by the federal government’s Bureau of Justice Statistics
suggest that there are more than 250,000 hate crimes in America per
year — not the 6,000 to 10,000 annual total that the FBI has reported
since 1995. If those studies are correct, the real level of hate crimes
in America is some 25 to 40 times higher than the numbers given in the
FBI’s annual reports. Assuming that that also roughly applies to
anti-LGBT hate crimes, of which there were about 1,100 reported by the
FBI in its most recent report, then there may really be some 32,000 to
52,000 anti-LGBT hate crimes every year.
In any event, there are serious flaws with Jimenez’s attempt to
rewrite the history around Matt Shepard’s murder now, just as there were
10 years ago with ABC News’ reportage. The most obvious is in the
book’s central thesis — that anti-gay animus was not involved Shepard’s
murder. Or, as
U.S. Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) notoriously put it in 2009
in speaking out against the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act: “[W]e know
that that young man was killed in the commitment of robbery. It wasn’t
because he was gay. … [I]t’s really a hoax that continues to be used as
an excuse for passing these bills.”
This conception of the nature of hate crimes is innately flawed. All
bias crimes in fact are acts (including, say, robbery) which are already
crimes but which are committed with a bias motive. More to the point,
the presence of drugs as a factor doesn’t negate the concurrent presence
of a bias motive.
Jimenez’s account omits central pieces of evidence which established
clearly that it was no mere theory that McKinney had committed an
anti-gay hate crime.
What we know, from multiple witness accounts at the trials, is this:
Shepard, a 22-year-old student at the University of Wyoming, was openly
gay, and was somewhat flamboyant about it, at least by Laramie
standards. Hanging out in a local bar the night of Oct. 6, he managed to
attract the attention of two local rednecks, Aaron McKinney and Russell
Henderson, who were looking for someone to rob, and picked Shepard
because he was gay. They told Shepard they too were gay and offered to
give him a ride home in their pickup truck, and Shepard accepted.
McKinney later gave multiple, conflicting accounts of what happened
that night. He told a police detective that Shepard had not made any
advances toward him at the bar, but that Shepard put his hand on
McKinney’s leg inside the pickup, at which point McKinney told him:
“Guess what? We’re not gay. You’re gonna get jacked.” From prison, he
wrote to a friend that he started beating Shepard in the car because of
an even more naked advance: “When we got out to where he was living, I
got ready to draw down on his ass, and all of the sudden he said he was
gay and wanted a piece of me. While he was ‘comming out of the closet’
he grabbed my nuts and licked my ear!! Being a verry drunk homofobic
[sic] I flipped out and began to pistol whip the fag with my gun, ready
at hand.”
Later, at trial, McKinney attempted to claim that Shepard had in fact
made an advance on him at the bar, whispering a sexual proposition into
his ear and then licking his lips suggestively. The humiliation he felt
at the advance, he claimed, spurred a violent rage that made him want
to beat Shepard. (The judge, however, struck down this testimony.)
Whatever the sequence of events and motivations, the three men wound
up southeast of town in a remote area. McKinney and Henderson robbed
Shepard and tied him up with rope. As Shepard begged for his life,
McKinney proceeded to beat him severely, ultimately pulling out a gun
and pistol-whipping him about the head. They left him to die, in the
freezing night air, leaned up against a wooden rail fence.
It was in that pose that two mountain bikers found him, some 12 hours
later, at first thinking he was a “scarecrow” someone had propped up on
the fence. (Their original description created a popular image of
Shepard strung up on the fence like a crucified martyr, though in fact
his arms were tied behind him and he was seated on the ground.) He was
barely alive, and lingered for another five days at the Laramie hospital
before he finally died of his injuries.
Jimenez’s books also substantially omits evidence that was produced
at the time establishing McKinney’s bias motivation. And indeed,
McKinney not only did not deny the existence of this bias, he positively
embraced it at trial by attempting a “gay panic” defense – claiming
that he had “freaked out” at Shepard’s sexual advances and beaten him to
death in anger – that ultimately failed before the jury.
There’s more. The lead investigator in the case, a detective named
Rob DeBree, has repudiated the crystal meth theory. Debree told Beth
Loffreda, author of
Losing Matt Shepard: Life and Politics in the Aftermath of an Anti-Gay Murder,
that “the murder didn’t look like any meth crime” he had seen. Debree
said the attempt by McKinney’s defense team to paint him as being under
the influence of crystal meth had no evidence to support it: There was
no evidence, he said, of recent drug use “found in the search of their
residences. There was no evidence in the truck. From everything we were
able to investigate, the last time they would have done meth would have
been up to two to three weeks previous to that night. What the defense
attempted to do was a bluff.”
As
Luke Brinker at Media Matter observes,
it isn’t difficult to discern the motives of the right-wing pundits
eager to embrace this revisionist smear of Matthew Shepard: “It’s also
an opportunity to assail the LGBT community’s campaign for equal rights
and protection from violence and bigotry,” Brinker wrote.
The Matthew Shepard Foundation, responding to the latest attack on the memory of Matt Shepard,
issued a brief response:
“Attempts now to rewrite the story of this hate crime appear to be
based on untrustworthy sources, factual errors, rumors and innuendo
rather than the actual evidence gathered by law enforcement and
presented in a court of law. We do not respond to innuendo, rumor or
conspiracy theories. Instead we recommit ourselves to honoring Matthew’s
memory, and refuse to be intimidated by those who seek to tarnish it.”