A Murder in Laramie...

[OneFinger]

Just saw a promo for Friday's 20/20 lead story. Here's how TV Guide describes the program:

 

Elizabeth Vargas sheds new light on a disturbing crime that gained national attention. In the aftermath of the October 1998 murder of gay college student Matthew Shepard in Wyoming, the media focused on testimony that the perpetrators were spurred by homophobia.

 

But in the first interviews since their sentencing, Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson, both currently serving two life terms, say otherwise. The hour also reveals details of Shepard's and McKinney's personal lives, and people acquainted with both men suggest that Shepard knew one of his assailants.

 

Sounds like this is another "blame the victim" piece of bullshit. It must be sweeps week. x(

[bostonman]

>Just saw a promo for Friday's 20/20 lead story. Here's how TV

>Guide describes the program:

>

>Elizabeth Vargas sheds new light on a disturbing crime that

>gained national attention. In the aftermath of the October

>1998 murder of gay college student Matthew Shepard in Wyoming,

>the media focused on testimony that the perpetrators were

>spurred by homophobia.

>

>But in the first interviews since their sentencing, Aaron

>McKinney and Russell Henderson, both currently serving two

>life terms, say otherwise. The hour also reveals details of

>Shepard's and McKinney's personal lives, and people acquainted

>with both men suggest that Shepard knew one of his assailants.

>

>

>Sounds like this is another "blame the victim" piece of

>bullshit. It must be sweeps week. x(

 

I'll wait to hear the details before I decide it's a "blame the victim" piece...but I did hear part of a promo the other day that explained that the crime may have been drug-related, rather than a homophobic hate crime.

 

But, no matter the motive, it was still a horrible, horrible crime, and an unbelievably awful way to die. I don't care if it was because of homophobia, drugs, or for any other reason. The fact that McKinney and Henderson want to tell us they're not homophobic doesn't change the fact that they killed Matthew Shepard. The real tragedy is that Shepard is dead, and two other youths are behind bars for life. Nothing is going to change that.

[Flower]

*****

>the media focused on testimony that the perpetrators were

>spurred by homophobia.

>

>But in the first interviews since their sentencing, Aaron

>McKinney and Russell Henderson, both currently serving two

>life terms, say otherwise.

 

Things are never what they seem anymore, with anyone of noteriety having a hndler it seems, to put a spin on facts or do damage control. To really evaluate what someone is saying and to be able to judge it's credibility, it helps to be aware of his (their) motives.

 

Both of these individuals were convicted of HATE CRIMES which added considerable to their murder convictions. Each State that allows an aggravated penalty for "hate crimes" handles it differently and I'm not familiar with Wyoming, however, I understand that the HATE CRIME portion is up on appeal and it could make the difference between life without parole or just life in which case they're out in 24-30 years or sooner--again, this is all state specific and I'm speaking in generalities--except for the fact THAT THEY HAVE A LOT TO GAIN BY OVERTURNING THE HATE CRIME ASPECT OF THESE CONVICTIONS! I don't believe them for a minute, but then what do I know!:*

[+ deej]

>I don't believe them for a minute, but then what do I know

 

I'm willing to listen. If they were railroaded, they do deserve to be heard.

 

But they still beat a kid senseless, dragged him out to a wilderness spot, and strapped him to a fence to die a miserable death.

 

It may not have been homo-related. I'll give them that.

 

But the crime still embodies hate. You don't beat the crap out of someone because you admire them, and you don't strap them to a fence in the middle of nowhere to die a lonely and miserable death because you're a fan.

 

The perps hated that kid.

[brentberna]

This topic also brings up the whole topic of "hate crimes". Are they real, constitutional, based on the rule of law?

[Flower]

When I said I don't believe them (now) I did so based on their original attempted "defense" at trial in blaming their conduct on an allegation of Matthew having made a sexual pass at one of both of them--the so called "defense" of GAY PANIC which was rejected by the trial court and at that point one of them entered a plea of guilty, stateing in court the factual basis for his plea including the alleged gay sexual advance. I believe their initial statements to the police asserted this also and they were prepared to confess in court in front of the jury if the judge had allowed the "gay panic" defense.

 

In otherwords, why I'm skeptical, is that they said one thing when their attorneys told them it would be to their benefit to say it, and that having failed, say the opposite when it is definitely to their benefit--go figure :-(

[spiro3]

RE: "15 minutes"

 

Having lived very close to the scene of this particular crime, I followed events closely as they unfolded, and from the get-go this was described as being a hate crime. From the moment Aaron McKinney opened his mouth to the investigating officer, he used terminology such as “ yeah, we really messed up the fag” and continuously referred to Matthew Shepard in derogatory terms….almost as if he were bragging about it. Certainly the Laramie police labeled it as a hate crime from day one, and, from personal experience, I can tell you that many of the citizens of Laramie thought Shepard had “asked for it” because he was gay. I haven’t real a single account where drugs were involved at any stage of this tragedy, except for Henderson and McKinney being regular meth users.

 

I can’t see any great advantage to either of them by doing this interview…….there was no hate crime legislation in place in Wyoming at the time of the murder ( and their isn’t now either). So Flower, you have an interesting thesis, but the interview won’t be of any benefit as far as reducing their time. The only advantage I can think of is that they get to extend their “15 minutes” , and perhaps gain some sympathy. It won’t come from me……….

[Guest Tristan]

Tonight, the 20/20 lead story on Matthew Shepard airs. I don't know if I could even get myself to watch the story to evaluate how it's covered. I guess I suspect that the objective is to do a sensational sytle piece to up the ratings for ABC. It could turn out a real disgrace to the network. The Briefs section on this site points to an article on tonight's story on http://www.365gay.com. For anyone who doesn't know, 365gay.com is an online gay newspaper that is updated during the day.

 

Why do I feel this way? Aside from the usual misreprentation of the mistreatment of gays, there's another reason. Years ago, John Stossel (sp?), who specializes in sensationalistic reporting, did a story on Worker's Compensation. The story focused on a man collecting worker's comp caught on camera on a ladder against his home. I believe they also showed a few other similar situations. The story conveyed the message to the public that most people on Worker's Comp are frauds who are too lazy to work. Sound familiar? People on welfare are all just lazy bums - right? The story was totally misleading and inaccurate.

 

I've been on Worker's Comp and have intimate knowledge of the system. Over 95% of worker's comp cases are legitimate. Most people on worker's comp would much rather work and feel good about themselves than suffer the pain of their injury and not have a productive job. Not a single mention was made about the existence of legitimate cases.

 

I wrote to ABC and John Stossel asking them to do a story on legitimate cases and the show how insurance companies and the system harass people collecting worker's comp. No reply. Of course not. It's not sensational to run a story on valid cases. Who would watch? People want to see scandalous stories on individuals bilking the system or taking their hard earned taxes. Shame on the networks for this mentality of ratings over truth.

 

So I assume the story on Matthew Shepard will be of the same type, distorting the truth, and it would just get me upset to watch. Maybe, I'll tape it and watch it someday. I don't know.

[spiro3]

Perhaps the most tragic aspect of this broadcast is the pain and suffering being caused to Matthew's family......Judy and Dennis Shepard spared Aaron McKinney's pathetic life by agreeing to a life sentence with no possibility of parole with the condition that Mckinney not be allowed to make any further statements to the press or be interviewed.....so now that pledge is being broken as a publicity stunt for this scumbag and ABC. I hope there is some way the family can sue the hell out of ABC.

 

Incidently, it's quite impressive how Judy Shepard has taken up gay-related causes in Matthew's name. She is to be commended for that.

[bostonman]

I am already disgusted at what ABC is doing.

 

The "cliffhanger" at the end of the first segment has a reporter asking one of the murderers, "Did you kill Matthew Shephard because he was gay?" The only response seems to be a stunned/surprised look on the face of the murderer as if to say he's never ever heard that question before. This is just horrible.

[OneFinger]

Well, the program was more well-balanced than I originally thought. They did present "evidence" that Mathew did have a drug past and may have partied with one of his killers.

 

But, they did interview Mathew's mother where she emphasized it was a hate crime despite any drug connection.

 

My personal opinion was that this was a very brutal murder. It was a hate crime and I hope the killers ROT IN JAIL or HELL (depending on your opinion)!!!!

[bostonman]

Pure tabloid TV at its manipulative worst.

 

We're supposed to feel sorry for Henderson because he didn't have the balls to stop the crime for happening, and now he's in jail for the rest of his life because "McKinney put him there"?? (And they tell us Henderson is appealing his sentence because he didn't understand his rights? Come on!)

 

And McKinney - who comes out with a "some of my best friends are gay" statement, is himself now rumored to have had bisexual experiences? (He denied it, of course.) Leave it to ol' ABC to just make the whole story more salacious...

 

Worst of all was Andrew Sullivan playing both sides of the fence.

 

As I said before, whether drugs were involved or not doesn't lessen the horrific nature of the crime. I really don't need McKinney telling me he's actually a meth addict, not a homophobe - it doesn't in any way excuse what he did.

[VaHawk]

I also thought it was "somewhat" balanced, as it wasn't possible to hear from the victim.

 

Given the size of the town, I find it difficult to believe that either of the perpetrators were unaware of Matthew's orientation or didn't know him at the local "hangout". Seems that Matthew and Aaron, were both involved in drugs, and that they knew each other, before the murder, from events involving drug use.

 

Also, seems that Aaron had engaged in male on male sexual encounters previously, but denied his sexuality and hated himself for his sexual longings. As such, perhaps his anger at himself for his sexual longings, was what led to such an ugly outburst of violence.

 

Maybe Aaron and Matthew agreed to some kind of drugs for sex exhange, and after ingesting drugs, Aaron struck out against Matthew in a rage of self-hatred. I don't know if that is a hate crime, unless it a crime of self-hatred.

 

As far as Russell, perhaps he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, a naive participant in the whole self-hatred/drugs scenario, playing out between Aaron and Matthew. He said he never struck Matthew, but who really knows? If he is telling the truth, then he was just "fucked up on drugs", and is guilty of accessory to murder, certainly, but not really guilty of a hate crime.

 

Seems like there is enough doubt, especially considering that there was no anti-gay graffiti at the murder site, to give at least Russell, a reprieve of engaging in a hate crime.

 

IMO, the only evidence presented for charging the perpetrators with a hate crime, is that they initially followed the bad advice of their attorneys to plead the so called Gay Defense. That, alone, just doesn't seem to be enough evidence that the crime of murder/robbery was also a hate crime.

[VaHawk]

"As I said before, whether drugs were involved or not doesn't lessen the horrific nature of the crime. I really don't need McKinney telling me he's actually a meth addict, not a homophobe - it doesn't in any way excuse what he did."

 

You're missing the whole point! Reread what Flower posted.

 

No one is trying to excuse what Aaron and Russell did, nor denying that it was a horrific crime, nor that they are not guilty of brutally murdering Matthew! The crime was judged a hate crime and that led to a longer prison term, than would have resulted from a just a "regular" conviction for robbery/murder. Getting that additional prison time evacuated for engaging in a hate crime, is what Aaron and Russell are trying to overturn.

[Guest ReturnOfS]

Too bad the victim isn't around to give his part of the story.

[Paul Revere]

I was home last night so I watched this horrible program.

 

While is was less sensational than I had anticpated, it was still horrible tabloid jounalism with very little new information for an hour long sow.

 

I am annoyed and insulted by the cliffhanger leads into commercials. If you are doing an investigative report, just give me the facts, and don't try to turn it inot an episode of Desperate Housewives.

 

There was very little new information in this story, and way to many unsubstantiated charges and innuendos. The basic fact that cam out was that McKinney was strung out on crystal meth, and that Matthew Shepard may have used drugs. I don't think that is really new information.

 

I am not buying for one minute the new "the crystal made me do it" defense that they have now cooked up. They choose the gay panic defense, and they underestimated the jurors in Wyoming, who didn't fall for it. If it was simple robbery or drug deal gone bad, why not just take Matthews wallet and dump him by the side of the road. They went to a lot of trouble to tie him to the fence and beat him savagely. I also don't think that either of those young men will ever see the outside of a prison, reagardless of any new defence that they may come up with. The crime itself was just too brutal.

 

Most of the other "new" information was unsubstantiated charges from fary unreliable drug users. I don't know why any relaible news organization would give any time to the poor woman who would not give her last name and claims she partied with all of them in the back of limousines many times. The only thing I bleeived from her is that she was in the back seats of cars many mnay times. And that limo driver guy certainly partied a lot, but I am not sure that any of his charges were solid.

 

And couldn't ABC find any other gay spokesperson than Andrew Sullivan. Oh please, give him a rest.

 

But at least the story was done by Elizabeth Vargas rather than that uber-twit John Stoessel. I can't imagine Barbara Walters doing this story the way they did it.

 

I also have a small personal problem with Elizabeth Vargas, because I think that she looks like Teri Hatcher, so I keep seeing Teri Hatcher trying to play a jounalist, and then it goes to this whole Lois Lane thing.. (I know - this is my problem.)

[Houston Bonfires]

Terri Hatcher would have been a big improvement. I was dumbfounded watching Vargas (so called journalist) ask a question and then move her head either up and down or side to side depending on which response she expected. WHAT TRASH.

[Guest bighugbearphx]

>The crime was judged a

>hate crime and that led to a longer prison term, than would

>have resulted from a just a "regular" conviction for

>robbery/murder. Getting that additional prison time evacuated

>for engaging in a hate crime, is what Aaron and Russell are

>trying to overturn.

 

Huh? I don't recall that Wyoming had an active "hate crime" law covering gays at the time. I think the murder resulted in them PASSING one, but I don't believe it existed at the time of the murder, which means it would not have affected their sentence, per se ... though obviously the hatred expressed could have affected the court's sentencing on its own. Am I wrong?

 

My reaction to the program: Obviously, it was "sweeps" tabloid journalism at its worse. While I believe ABC had a right to explore the other aspects of the case not widely known, what I object to is the "spin" they put on it, which was obviously to make viewers believe that Matthew being gay had very little to do with the murder. Even though they aired interviews that also showed McKinney LIED repeatedly, not just during the trial but during this interview (about not knowing Matthew before, about never having had sex with another male, etc.) ABC seemed to conclude that he wasn't lying about not hating Matthew because he was gay.

 

In my mind, the fact that he used the "homosexual panic" defense should have irrevocably labeled this a hate crime, in absence of any other factors. The fact that the defense didn't work, so now he's saying "I really didn't hate homosexuals" doesn't wash, in my book.

 

And I'd like to see the Laramie police arrest McKinney's girlfriend who admitted on the show that she LIED TO POLICE when questioned.

[spiro3]

A good place to learn why this piece of jourmalistic trash was so bad and inaccurate is to go to the following:http://www.matthewshepard.org/involved_2020.html

 

It ruined my night also as it dredged up all the memories of being there at the time it happened, and hearing the justifications being tossed around about why this murder happened......Matthew's supposed "coming on" to McKinney and others, and wasn't he just as dangerous as the killers walking around with Aids? And now that 20/20 has enlightened us with the drug angle, we definitely know that Shepard got what he deserved.

 

What worries me is, now that the election showed that 80% of the population hates our faggot asses, is it now open journalistic season on gays?

[Guest Tristan]

FYI: There are two articles on http://www.365gay.com on last night's broadcast that may be of interest to some members.

 

Someone referred to John Stossel as an "uber twit." Good name for that slimeball. I already posted a reply about my feelings regarding John Stossel based on other circumstances. Thank goodness he didn't do the interview. I'm sure he would have been even more sensational, if that's possible based on what I have read here. IMHO, 20/20 (with the exception of Barbara Walters, no longer with the show) has become a television version of the National Enquirer - tabloid journalism at its worst.

 

As an aside, the producer (or news director) of Nightline, a program which I believe to be one of the best, has resigned over what he calls the future direction of Nightline. He wrote a farewell in his daily e-mail to people on the Nightline mailing list. What is happening at ABC? Isn't it Disney that now owns them? Not sure about that.

[Muscle Lover]

Much talk about very little.

[guptasa1]

I honestly didn't think it was that bad (especially considering what I thought it was going to be). I have to agree that it didn't say all that much. And frankly, there were more questions than answers. Even the stories of the two killers didn't make a lot of sense (especially contrasting with the limo guy). And I can't imagine pleading guilty to a hate crime if it wasn't motivated by hate. It's possible, but I still don't buy it. So it didn't really change my opinion of what happened. Just opened up other possibilities.

 

The killers didn't come off as especially sorry either... To me it was more like, "Well, I was high on drugs, so I wasn't responsible for what I did." (At least the guy who actually beat him so badly.) Not exactly an "Oh my gawd, I murdered an innocent kid...". It almost seemed like *they* wanted sympathy, and while yeah...drugs can mess people up...that's no excuse.

 

I also thought it was balanced the way they showed how much people can and do hate (the "protestors", and I use the term loosely, at Matt's burial). At least they didn't say "See, there's not that much gay hate out there." They showed very real and very scary examples. ("When fags die, God laughs." I hadn't seen that before... Ughhh...that's...such a PUTRID thing to say about anyone.)

 

All in all, I just don't think it helped the killer's case, and I don't think it's taken anything away (at least for me - can't speak for others) from the good that's come out of this tragedy.

 

I was fortunate enough to see Matt's mom speak, and while I'm sorry this situation EVER happened, she (and the organization that was made in his honor) has done a LOT of good for the entire gay community, and I have no doubt that will continue.