New Book Claims Matthew Shepard was a Meth Dealer and Addict. WTF?

The killers had girlfriends, and McKinney even a child with his girlfriend. How gay is that?

http://www.matthewshepard.jeff-reys.com/

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/21/u...al-killing-of-gay-student.html?pagewanted=all

 

So the fact that McKinney himself now says otherwise doesn't matter? He claims he used it has a defense tactic in the trial. If it was just him changing his story, and no one else corroborating it, I'd write it off as well. The thing is, many others are saying very similar things. People who seemingly have no reason to lie about this.

 

No one is accusing them of being gay, Aerianne. I'm certainly not.

 

we'll take the job for $1 buck..

 

McKinney categorized the crime as a gay hate crime by his own words:

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/21/u...al-killing-of-gay-student.html?pagewanted=all

 

Where did he say it was a hate crime? Where did he say "we are doing this because you are gay"? Does it matter that he was jacked up on meth? Does it matter that this statement doesn't jive with his past actions?

I think there is enough evidence to cast doubt on the official story.

 

What is your point, Sig?

 

The fact that McKinney had to tell Shepard, "Guess what? We're not gay!" Says it all.

There were no prior sexual encounters between either of them and Shepard.

Shepard had little to no prior dealings with the two who attacked him or otherwise they would not have been able to trick him into thinking they were gay when he left the bar with them.

 

People who know them both say otherwise, Aerianne. Again, one of Shepard's ex-boyfriends claims that he and Matthew had gone out to gay clubs months before the attack happened. Others said McKinney and Shepard sold drugs to each other often and had sex.

 

That is not what McKinney said.

 

I guess my overall point is that the attitudes like the one in the OP that say "This book should be burned. Not banned, but burned" are dangerous and, on a certain level, disgusting. It reeks of thought police mentality, where the official story/narrative can never be questioned and those that do question it, no matter the veracity or accuracy of their evidence, are immediately set upon and demonized. That is pathetic.

There are many people who gain from the idea that Matthew Shepard was a martyr and the victim of a hate crime and if that idea is cast into doubt, well, those people have something to loose.

 

And why would he? What does he have to gain? He is going to be in prison for the rest of his life regardless. Why admit he is bisexual and make his life behind bars worse? What do the people who knew Matthew Shepard have to gain by saying what they are? Why would his ex-boyfriend lie? What do they have to gain?

There seems to be multiple people who are starting to paint the same picture of what happened and that picture doesn't necessarily jive with the official story is.

 

the people didn't even let the funeral go peacefully. which is one of the more disturbing aspects about this thing. the need to overstate your disapproval to the point of absurdity. i really don't get that.

how've you been, by the way? doing okay?

 

i never thought he was killed only for being gay. but it was a factor. the primary motive might have been robbery, maybe they initially just thought they would jerk him around a bit, but the situation got out of hand. it is known Shepard made a move on McKinney in that truck. McKinney started beating him and apparently he flipped at some point and took it too far. they also pretended they were gay to get Shepard to go along with them in the first place. his being gay had a clear factor in the whole sequence of events.

i don't concern myself with what people say. they are lying and stretching the truth they know factually most of the time. the stuff they don't know about, they make up. it's all a bunch of contradicting understandings. the people i am in daily contact with interpret some of the happenings in my own life completely wrong. because they don't have all the facts, and they see what they want to see.

those who were close to the murderers know them and want to humanize them. the murderers themselves are faced having to explain their actions in a changed climate. they probably even realize they overdid it (Henderson does feel sorry and has apologized for not stopping McKinney from beating on Shepard). but what they say they feel right now is not what they felt when they did it. when they did it they were just two guys who hadn't committed murder yet. they had some opinions about gay guys (they said so themselves), they had violent tendencies and history. their actions were of such. now they are two guys in jail for having brutally killed another. we like to think murderers are these 1-dimensional creatures who aren't affected by the murder they commit themselves, but they are and it does affect them. and what they say right now is in the context of that. it is not what happened the night they beat Shepard up. that's how what any of them is saying doesn't correlate to the murder. it only correlates to their current psychological state.

and, yes, a drug deal gone bad is a ridiculous scenario.

 

this is true. we should question the appearance of things and think things through before making a judgment. but we should do it applying common sense. it doesn't follow that we should question and doubt the truthfulness of absolutely everything in existence; nor that just because a certain point of view has been established and upheld by the majority that that immediately means it is false and questionable. some people claim the Earth is flat right now in our age, wanna give that reality an equal chance as well?

there is a certain consensus on things. on Shepard's case it's that his sexuality played a role in the crime. this consensus wasn't reached on flimsy opinions and 3rd degree interpretations. it was arrived at through professional work. if you wanna trust what some people who weren't even involved with the crime are saying about it right now more than professional conclusion at the time of the crime, that is your right to interpret the world that way. i don't.

 

Those^

and what McKinney admitted to on the days between the attack and Shepard's death.

Case closed. (as it was 15 years ago)

 

No.

At the time of McKinney's confession, Shepard was still alive and McKinney was not facing life behind bars.