The truth about Matthew Shepard

[isanbirder]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/26/the-truth-behind-americas-most-famous-gay-hate-murder-matthew-shepard

Murdered because he was gay, or for money and drugs?

[thaicurious]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard

Police officials interviewed after Jimenez's book's publication disputed certain claims made in the book. O'Malley said Jimenez's claim that Shepard was "a methamphetamine kingpin is almost humorous. Someone that would buy into that certainly would believe almost anything they read." Rob Debree, lead sheriff's investigator at the time, said the book contains "factual errors and lies", and deemed Jimenez's claim that Shepard was a drug dealer "truly laughable"...

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/10/23/gay-marriage-primer-matthew-shepard-parents/7wigbhqIs8z5b8KTSYvo2H/story.html

Gay marriage in Wyo.: Primer by Matthew Shepard’s parents

By Judy and Dennis Shepard | October 24, 2014

We never thought we’d see marriage equality come to Wyoming in our lifetime. But in a wave of judicial rulings allowing same-sex couples to marry across the country, this week a federal court ruling granted our neighbors the opportunity to make history at the altar. The lives and rights of LGBT people in the “Equality State” are rarely thought about without reflection on the 1998 hate-crime murder of our 21-year-old son Matthew. His abduction, beating, and death changed the way this country and the world responded to anti-gay hate, eventually leading to a federal hate-crime law that bears his name.

In Wyoming, there is much still to do. The state continues to allow employers to fire these newlyweds for their sexual orientation and gender identity, and the reality is that they — and their children — may face social rejection simply for being who they are. We are keenly aware of the progress left to be made, but today, we celebrate this incredible step forward.

[Jingthing]

I don't know the truth and I don't think it really matters all that much at this point. The case became symbolic and iconic, and regardless of whether the more mainstream perception of hate crime is the reality, the reality was and is there is lots of violence against gay people in America just for being gay.

On Matthew's personal life, that a young gay man might have been involved in drugs and prostitution, hardly shocking or really unusual to people who live in the real world.

Getting gang raped in Morocco on holiday ... have to admit that's really exotic sounding.

About the author's motivation and his being gay proving his sincerity ... I don't think so. His motivation could well be money and fame. Understandable human motivations. Imagine if you could do a credible book showing Harvey Milk was actually straight or George Washington was Jewish.

You'd be rich.

Anyway, I believe in free speech and the author has put this narrative out there. See what happens next, if anything.

Edited October 26, 2014 by Jingthing

[sustento]

"Murdered because he was gay, or for money and drugs?"

Does it matter?

Is being murdered for money and drugs any less vile than being murdered for being gay?

Are there degrees of murder that are more acceptable than others?

[Jingthing]

Of course, murder is murder.

But it matters in the sense that the Matthew Shepard case has a place in history in the American gay civil rights movement. We shouldn't be afraid of the truth, whatever it is. It won't make the goals of this civil rights movement any less valid, either way.

[sustento]

Meh. Murder is murder. Civil rights take a lowly second place.

Edited October 26, 2014 by sustento

[Jingthing]

Meh. Murder is murder. Civil rights take a lowly second place.

You're obviously not American and are ignorant about the resonance of this particular case. If his murder had not been linked to homophobia, nobody but his family and friends would know his name now. So as an accidental historical figure ... yes it does matter at that level.

BTW, prediction time.

I can see a movie being made someday about the case using this alternative narrative.

People would be interested.

Edited October 26, 2014 by Jingthing

[ClutchClark]

There is no such thing as male prostitution in Laramie-WY.

There is such a thing as Crystal Meth.

Matthew Shepherd does not fit the demographic of a crystal meth user in the Western States.

If one of the killers was, in fact, gay then it does largely destroy the prosecutions premise that the boy was killed for his sexual orientation.

Any way you add it up, it was a terrible death and completely undeserved.

May Matthew rest in peace.

[thaicurious]

It definitely matters to the movement but also it matters to his mother. Certainly clear cut truth should reign but how was this not sloppy?

How is old information about sloppy reporting and questionable intentions suddenly "news" more than a full year later?

How is it that this "news" "story" "broke" on Oct 25th, 2014, four days after marriage for gay people became legal in Wyoming?

How is it that, coincidentally, the author of this so called news story...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Bindel

...Bindel ... does not support same-sex marriage

??????????????????????????????????????????

Meanwhile, to the comment of how a gay person could not hurt a gay person...

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gay-and-lesbian-well-being/201307/are-homophobes-really-gay

levels of homophobia were assessed among 64 men along with their sexual arousal (measured by increases in penile circumference) in response to erotic videos of heterosexual, same-sex female, and same-sex male encounters. Those who scored high on homophobia were more likely to also manifest sexual arousal in response to the videos of male homosexual encounters. In a more recent study it was found that men raised in authoritative households were more likely to repress same-sex attractions and to exhibit more hostility to gay people

Edited October 27, 2014 by thaicurious

[Caitrin]

I met Judy Shepard at Atlanta Pride in the mid-2000s. I can tell you this: his mother certainly, unequivocally believes her son was murdered because of his orientation. Crystal meth addiction is very difficult to hide, and while I am sure that if he had been a user he could have kept her in the dark for some amount of time, it wouldn't have been for a very long time.

In the end, "martyrs" like Matthew Shepard area always greater than the sum of their parts. We are often ill at ease with moral ambiguities, so when we have the chance to make someone into a symbol of the cause, a cause which in and of itself is just and right but needs a symbol for wider recognition, we often lose historical truths about the person in the process.

Was Matthew Shepard killed for his orientation? I think so. At the very least, it probably played a significant role. Does it matter to the symbol? Probably not. The fact it could have, the fact that if it did, it would be completely believable and representative of other hate crimes, that's what matters.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Caitrin

[Jingthing]

I'm neutral on this.

I don't think it matters to the American gay civil rights movement if the author's conclusion turns out to be true.

I think what his mother thinks is not everything ... as mothers don't always know everything.

I am sure this matters to HER and other people close to this as well.

I don't think the author being gay is necessarily relevant either ... he claims he's acting as an objective investigative journalist ... that is in the realm of possibility. To suggest being gay makes that something he can't be expected to do and if he does and finds damaging stuff makes him homophobic himself ... I don't think it's good for the "movement" to go there!

Again, don't be afraid of the truth, whatever it is.

This is history now.

I don't believe that if the author is right, suddenly the people who have "evolved" on gay civil rights will backtrack.

To be clear, I am not saying I believe the author is right. As I said before, I don't know. Some people will care enough to debate the details of it. Personally, I don't care enough to do the research to have an informed opinion. He lived, he died, he was murdered, he became an accidental figure of history. That doesn't change either way.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Jingthing

[Scott]

Well, J.Edgar Hoover was gay too, so much for gays always having sympathy for other gays.

People were horrified by the murder and if it could have easily been connected to drugs, I am sure it would have been done so at the time. It would have been a lot easier for many people to deal with drugs than homophobia.

[ClutchClark]

Well, J.Edgar Hoover was gay too, so much for gays always having sympathy for other gays.

People were horrified by the murder and if it could have easily been connected to drugs, I am sure it would have been done so at the time. It would have been a lot easier for many people to deal with drugs than homophobia.

Scott, I would disagree with you. It is not easier for WY folks to "deal with the crystal meth culture than ones sexual orientation." Contrary to the popular stereotypes, Wyoming is not homophobic. People in WY have always practiced a "Live & Let Live" philosophy. In other words, personal freedom reigns. That does not mean they advocate for the LGBT community...it just means they do not think another persons private affairs is any of their business either. On the other hand, Laramie is the University town and has had an active gay community for several decades. Fifty anyway. Albany County would be considered liberal in its views of the LGBT community and for an outsider to declare otherwise is simply an attempt to stereotype.

But Wyomingites do have a big problem accepting the drug culture and its an interesting consideration whether the interested parties would have made a point to publicize the drug connection at the time.

The Shepherd family would have had zero incentive to publicize such a negative topic of their son being a dealer in Meth since that would distort the memory of Matthew. Additionally, the parents wanted to see maximum penalty against the killers and if it could be shown Matthews death was the result of a drug deal gone wrong then the public would not have been so offended by his death.

It would have been more likely the killers' attorneys that would have made public this drug angle. Wyomingites hated the monsters that could beat a boy to near death and string him up on a barbed wire fence exposed to the prairie winds. They wanted to see those killers exterminated like the vermin they are. The attorney would have had an incentive to shed light on this crystal meth angle.

And the Laramie police would have discovered it during their investigation and would have reported it had they found substantiated evidence of such.

Not to say Wyoming does not have its influential families and a call to the Prosecutors Office can still get strings pulled with some offenses but this case was nationally scrutinized and even rumors of Matthew being a Meth Head would have certainly been explored by the 100+ news teams skulking around that town for months afterward.

Lastly, the report that the killers were enroute to Matthews residence to steal the Meth but became sidetracked when they saw some other guys to beat up just doesn't make sense. Meth heads are ugly addicts and those two killers would not have let anything slow them up to get any alleged stash of drugs ASAP.

In conclusion, having spent my entire life as a member of the conservative Western culture, I would say the drug angle and male prostitution is fiction and was introduced to sell books. The only bit of information that doesn't add up is if one of the killers was actually a participant in the gay lifestyle. This would destroy the prosecution's premise that the murders were committed by two homophobic killers ( who, BTW, were not from WY).

Edited October 27, 2014 by ClutchClark

[ProThaiExpat]

Does it really matter if Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers as so many in history have alleged and "proved" Did Mary escape the apostles persecution since she was a woman when she allegedly went to Spain and started a movement there. Christianity is and was a very positive force in so many lives the historical "facts" are rendered irrelevant by martyrdom.

The good that the Mathew Sheppard case did for American law and attitudes transcends any negative anyone can come up with about Mathew's personal life and renders those "facts" likewise irrelevant.

I do recall reading he was a straight A student at the U of Wyoming. While it is no Harvard, I doubt a Meth Head could keep that kind of GPA and be strung out on Meth and dealing in it.

Edited October 27, 2014 by ProThaiExpat

[isanbirder]

It was a horrible death and I have every sympathy with him. If his death did some good, then it had a positive meaning.

The Guardian quite frequently writes about gay issues, and as often as not, I post them in here. I'm not sure it is always too accurate, but does that matter if it makes people think?

[ClutchClark]

The good that the Mathew Sheppard case did for American law and attitudes transcends any negative anyone can come up with about Mathew's personal life and renders those "facts" likewise irrelevant.

I don't believe it would be considered irrelevant to the two convicted of his murder.

The US Judicial system is designed to work on evidence and even the guilty have the right to a fair trial with all evidence presented.

Gay rights do not take priority over the Rights afforded ALL Americans.

[Jingthing]

The convicted guilty murderers were not charged and not convicted of a hate crime. Rather murder without the hate crime jazz. So I don't see how it impacts on their situation in the slightest.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Jingthing

[Scott]

I spent considerable time in Wyoming, so I do know a little about the place and I currently have an immediate family member who has been living there for a number of years.

The Matthew Shepard case drew national (and international) attention, so I am not talking about the attitude of Wyoming. Bad things happen to people who are messed up in drugs, especially a 'kingpin'. What happened to Matthew was vicious and unimaginably cruel.

[ClutchClark]

I spent considerable time in Wyoming, so I do know a little about the place and I currently have an immediate family member who has been living there for a number of years.

The Matthew Shepard case drew national (and international) attention, so I am not talking about the attitude of Wyoming. Bad things happen to people who are messed up in drugs, especially a 'kingpin'. What happened to Matthew was vicious and unimaginably cruel.

Scott, thanks for clarifying. I am glad to hear about your WY 'connection'. As you must recall, the rest of the country had a grand time stereotyping everyone from WY as backwood hicks who hated gays during the trial of Matthew's killers. I had mistaken your mention of "homophobia" being directed at WY in a similar fashion.

My apology.

[Caitrin]

Jingthing, hate crimes are hate crimes whether they are classified as such or if such legislation recognises their existence or not. If I'm murdered because of hatred of queer people, given that I am queer, then my murder was a hate crime. Just because I believe it should be recognised legally doesn't mean I believe legal recognition is required to speak about the crime as a non-professional (non-lawyer, non-judge, etc) as a hate crime. It was a crime committed because of hatred of a trait that I possess, rather than just a personal animus. De facto, it's a hate crime.

[robertthebruce]

So so sad and what a death, forever reason they killed him, his final hours were unthinkable...

R.I.P.

[Jingthing]

My only point about the hate crime aspect of the Shepard case is this:

-- In the mainstream public perception, it was a hate crime related murder

-- This book will make some people question that public perception (the controversy will probably continue as his murder and public response to it is a historical event)

-- His murderers were convicted based on murder. There was no extra charges about hate crimes.

-- So even if it was "proven" that the murder was not a hate crime, it wouldn't be helpful to the convicted murderers as the time they are doing is not impacted by that finding, either way.

Personally, as I've said, I don't know the truth about the hate crime aspect of the case, and I don't think it makes much difference now, except for academic interest in a murder case that is part of history.

Another example, if it was discovered now that President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated not because of anger about the Lincoln's actions in the civil war but actually jealousy because gay Lincoln had slept with John Wilkes Booth's boyfriend, it would be academically fascinating, but change NOTHING now.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Jingthing

[ClutchClark]

Jingthing, hate crimes are hate crimes whether they are classified as such or if such legislation recognises their existence or not. If I'm murdered because of hatred of queer people, given that I am queer, then my murder was a hate crime. Just because I believe it should be recognised legally doesn't mean I believe legal recognition is required to speak about the crime as a non-professional (non-lawyer, non-judge, etc) as a hate crime. It was a crime committed because of hatred of a trait that I possess, rather than just a personal animus. De facto, it's a hate crime.

Murder is murder.

It is always wrong.

There should not be a special category because of the personal bias of the murderer.

There should not be one group of victims who receive any special treatment over any other group of victims.

If a person is brutally murdered in the manner Matthew Shepherd was then his killer(s) should face equal punishment regardless Matthews sexual orientation. The killers should receive no greater penalty because Matthew was gay any more than they should receive a lesser penalty because he was gay.

However, as Jingthing has attempted to point out, such hate crime legislation was not on the books in WY at the time of this murder.

However, it was not just the brutality of this matter that shocked local residents and a nation, it was that Matthew was perceived as completely innocent of any wrongdoing. This allegation of Matthew being involved in the business of drugs would change that dynamic of his presumed innocence and had this case moved forward defined as a drug dealer being killed for his drug stash, then it would have lacked much of the emotional sympathy it was given. How much that would have impacted the sentencing is unclear--it was still a brutal murder and WY society would have still wanted the type of animals who were capable of such a crime imprisoned for a very long time.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ClutchClark

[Caitrin]

ClutchClark, that's a very common opposing viewpoint. I'm afraid, I disagree.

When individuals in marginalised positions are killed because of those marginalised positions, it reinforces oppressive frameworks which are already against those individuals. So, yes, it is worse, because a person without that intersection of oppression could still have been murdered, but was much less likely to be murdered. Murder rates are higher amongst those in marginalised positions. Violence is higher. Harassment is higher. Discrimination in work environments is higher.

Hate crimes legislation takes this into account judicially, and recognition of such crimes as hate crimes takes this into account ethically.

If murder was murder was murder, we wouldn't have different classes. We wouldn't have manslaughter. We wouldn't consider mitigating factors. We wouldn't have "negligent homicide." We would have "murder" and that's it. Yet, we do not. So I find your argument lacking in merit in our current social fabric--one where individuals in marginalised positions are more likely to be murdered because of their marginalised traits and a judicial system which recognises differences between types of murders.

*shrug*

[ClutchClark]

ClutchClark, that's a very common opposing viewpoint. I'm afraid, I disagree.

When individuals in marginalised positions are killed because of those marginalised positions, it reinforces oppressive frameworks which are already against those individuals. So, yes, it is worse, because a person without that intersection of oppression could still have been murdered, but was much less likely to be murdered. Murder rates are higher amongst those in marginalised positions. Violence is higher. Harassment is higher. Discrimination in work environments is higher.

Hate crimes legislation takes this into account judicially, and recognition of such crimes as hate crimes takes this into account ethically.

If murder was murder was murder, we wouldn't have different classes. We wouldn't have manslaughter. We wouldn't consider mitigating factors. We wouldn't have "negligent homicide." We would have "murder" and that's it. Yet, we do not. So I find your argument lacking in merit in our current social fabric--one where individuals in marginalised positions are more likely to be murdered because of their marginalised traits and a judicial system which recognises differences between types of murders.

*shrug*

Yes, a judicial system which recognizes differences between types of murders and, until now, has applied punishments equally for each level of offense.

Am I right to assume you are a member of the LGBT community? So you have a vested interest to consider yourself deserving of a special privilege?

I don't see things that way. I believe in equality. I fought for gay rights because of my personal belief in equality. I do not believe a specific race, gender, religion or sexual orientation should be discriminated against because of that quality. Nor do i believe they should be provided extra special treatment because of that same quality.

But thats just my belief. You are free to discriminate against others and place greater value on your own life than another human beings. I just wish you would not feel the need to remove the blindfold from Lady Justice.

Back to the point, the killers of Matthew Shepherd are serving life sentences in jail so the legal system was already working quite well without the need for discriminatory legislation. The killers were tried and convicted for the brutality of callous indifference they inflicted on another human being. Matthew Shepherd was first and foremost a human being. It is that which is predominant in my mind--not the color of his skin, his religion, his wealth or his sexual orientation.

[Caitrin]

Sigh.

There's a difference between simple equality and justice. Simple "equality" as you're using it isn't addressing the lack of privilege already inherent in oppressive frameworks.

Think about it this way, you start off, through no fault of your own with three donuts. Your next door neighbor starts of life with seven donuts. A person down the block started off life with twelve donuts. The typical person needs at least nine donuts just to have a chance at getting any other donuts, and all the social ability that comes with. Now, I come along and give you each three more donuts. That's "equal." You still only have six donuts. That guy down the block? He has FIFTEEN donuts. That's "equality" maybe, but it sure as hell isn't "justice."

I don't have to be part of a marginalised community to believe in hate crime consideration. I'm LGBT, sure. But I am not, say, black, and if a KKK member kills a black man because that man was black and the KKK is an organisation dedicated to white supremacy, hell yes I am supporting that KKK member being convicted of a hate crime type of murder. That's not a "special privilege" (that's not even how we use the word privilege when we're discussing issues of intersectionality and oppressive frameworks like homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, racism, etc), that's justice.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Caitrin

[Jingthing]

I do support additional penalties for hate crimes.

I wasn't aware this thread was really about that debate. I thought it was about a questioning about whether the murder of Shepard was really a hate crime or not (regardless of whether it was prosecuted that way as it wasn't and wasn't legally possible to be at the time).

[Caitrin]

Good discourse has a tendency to drift. I've never found that to be a bad thing. I already said what I wanted to say about Shepard.

[Scott]

Making something a hate crime levels the playing field. In the past if a black person killed a white, he was likely to have a more severe punishment than if the situation was reversed. In many areas, gay bashing was not considered worthy of being pursued.

An adolescent who discussed his sexual issues with a counselor and the word got out was severely beaten at school. The police were called but no arrest were made because they knew the kid was a 'faggot'. The kid had never had sex with anyone -- male or female. The counselor was never arrested and no effort was made for a revocation of license.

That is the reason there needs to be a specific category for hate crimes.

Oh, and it wasn't real long after that that the kid committed suicide, but as some people said 'it's probably for the best.'

[sustento]

No - that is the reason that all need to be treated equally before the law.

Sentences should reflect the punishment for the crime that has been committed regardless of who committed it on whom.

If an assault is committed the perpetrator ought to be charged and tried regardless of the circumstances or the status of the victim.

The law ought to be blind and equal justice should be meted out to all without special treatment for anyone.