What do you think?
Rate this book
The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths About the Murder of Matthew Shepard
What role did crystal meth and other previously underreported factors play in the brutal murder of gay college student Matthew Shepard? The Book of Matt is a page-turning cautionary tale that humanizes and de-mythologizes Matthew while following the evidence where it leads, without regard to the politics that have long attended this American tragedy.
Late on the night of October 6, 1998, twenty-one-year-old Matthew Shepard left a bar in Laramie, Wyoming with two alleged “strangers,” Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson. Eighteen hours later, Matthew was found tied to a log fence on the outskirts of town, unconscious and barely alive. He had been pistol-whipped so severely that the mountain biker who discovered his battered frame mistook him for a Halloween scarecrow. Overnight, a politically expedient myth took the place of important facts. By the time Matthew died a few days later, his name was synonymous with anti-gay hate.
Stephen Jimenez went to Laramie to research the story of Matthew Shepard’s murder in 2000, after the two men convicted of killing him had gone to prison, and after the national media had moved on. His aim was to write a screenplay on what he, and the rest of the nation, believed to be an open-and-shut case of bigoted violence. As a gay man, he felt an added moral imperative to tell Matthew’s story. But what Jimenez eventually found in Wyoming was a tangled web of secrets. His exhaustive investigation also plunged him deep into the deadly underworld of drug trafficking. Over the course of a thirteen-year investigation, Jimenez traveled to twenty states and Washington DC, and interviewed more than a hundred named sources.
The Book of Matt is sure to stir passions and inspire dialogue as it re-frames this misconstrued crime and its cast of characters, proving irrefutably that Matthew Shepard was not killed for being gay but for reasons far more complicated — and daunting.
Late on the night of October 6, 1998, twenty-one-year-old Matthew Shepard left a bar in Laramie, Wyoming with two alleged “strangers,” Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson. Eighteen hours later, Matthew was found tied to a log fence on the outskirts of town, unconscious and barely alive. He had been pistol-whipped so severely that the mountain biker who discovered his battered frame mistook him for a Halloween scarecrow. Overnight, a politically expedient myth took the place of important facts. By the time Matthew died a few days later, his name was synonymous with anti-gay hate.
Stephen Jimenez went to Laramie to research the story of Matthew Shepard’s murder in 2000, after the two men convicted of killing him had gone to prison, and after the national media had moved on. His aim was to write a screenplay on what he, and the rest of the nation, believed to be an open-and-shut case of bigoted violence. As a gay man, he felt an added moral imperative to tell Matthew’s story. But what Jimenez eventually found in Wyoming was a tangled web of secrets. His exhaustive investigation also plunged him deep into the deadly underworld of drug trafficking. Over the course of a thirteen-year investigation, Jimenez traveled to twenty states and Washington DC, and interviewed more than a hundred named sources.
The Book of Matt is sure to stir passions and inspire dialogue as it re-frames this misconstrued crime and its cast of characters, proving irrefutably that Matthew Shepard was not killed for being gay but for reasons far more complicated — and daunting.
368 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2013
90 people are currently reading
1276 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 169 reviews
July 23, 2015
During the Matthew Shepard case, I was a Sergeant with the Laramie Police Department. One of my responsibilities was to review all police reports. I also was liaison to the Westboro Baptist Church, the Angels, and New Light Media and others during the trial. I located and arrested Kristen Price on the amended charge after Matthew Shepard’s death. I testified in some of the preliminary hearings, and I was present at many of the case strategy meetings. As a detective and supervisor of the investigations unit, I had also worked and reviewed other cases involving Henderson, McKinney, Doc, Prof. Heyman, John Baker, and others mentioned in Mr. Jimenez’s book.
I have read The Book of Matt, twice, and I find it to be the most accurate account of the murder of Matthew Shepard and surrounding circumstances to date. The murder and robbery of Matthew Shepard was a horrific crime, but in my opinion it was not a “hate crime.” Drugs and money were the motivation, not his sexual orientation. Methamphetamine devastates society and individuals. It destroyed the lives of Henderson and McKinney and it was the root cause of the horrific murder of Matthew Shepard.
Laramie had a meth problem. Anyone that didn’t see it wasn’t looking. That people continue to deny that meth had a major role in this tragedy is a tragedy in itself. Acknowledging that meth had a major role and confronting the ramifications, does not dishonor Matthew Shepard. It would add another dimension and maybe another cause to his legacy.
Matthew Shepard’s epitaph should not be, ‘If you are gay, be afraid, because someone might kill you.’ Instead, perhaps it should be, ‘Don’t use Meth or if you are using, Stop! It will ruin your life and maybe cause your death. It will bring despair and sadness to your friends and your family.’
Kudos to Stephen Jimenez for having the courage and determination to do a thorough investigation, and to give us such a well written and factual accounting. Kudos to Reggie Flutey, for her compassion and to Cal Rerucha and Ben Fritzen for their honesty and integrity.
I recommend this book to anyone who wants to know the whole truth and who will keep an open mind. Some of the detractors of this book chose to, and continue to, ride the wave of misinformation and hype and notoriety surrounding the death of Matthew Shepard and the international media event that it became, either for personal gain, instant celebrity, or to exorcise some personal demons. Although there has been much good that has been accomplished in the name of Matthew Shepard, in the end, the truth does matter, and Stephen Jimenez has brought us closer to the truth.
Mark David Beck
Criminal Defense Investigator/
Montana State Office of the Public Defender
Laramie Police Department/ Retired
I have read The Book of Matt, twice, and I find it to be the most accurate account of the murder of Matthew Shepard and surrounding circumstances to date. The murder and robbery of Matthew Shepard was a horrific crime, but in my opinion it was not a “hate crime.” Drugs and money were the motivation, not his sexual orientation. Methamphetamine devastates society and individuals. It destroyed the lives of Henderson and McKinney and it was the root cause of the horrific murder of Matthew Shepard.
Laramie had a meth problem. Anyone that didn’t see it wasn’t looking. That people continue to deny that meth had a major role in this tragedy is a tragedy in itself. Acknowledging that meth had a major role and confronting the ramifications, does not dishonor Matthew Shepard. It would add another dimension and maybe another cause to his legacy.
Matthew Shepard’s epitaph should not be, ‘If you are gay, be afraid, because someone might kill you.’ Instead, perhaps it should be, ‘Don’t use Meth or if you are using, Stop! It will ruin your life and maybe cause your death. It will bring despair and sadness to your friends and your family.’
Kudos to Stephen Jimenez for having the courage and determination to do a thorough investigation, and to give us such a well written and factual accounting. Kudos to Reggie Flutey, for her compassion and to Cal Rerucha and Ben Fritzen for their honesty and integrity.
I recommend this book to anyone who wants to know the whole truth and who will keep an open mind. Some of the detractors of this book chose to, and continue to, ride the wave of misinformation and hype and notoriety surrounding the death of Matthew Shepard and the international media event that it became, either for personal gain, instant celebrity, or to exorcise some personal demons. Although there has been much good that has been accomplished in the name of Matthew Shepard, in the end, the truth does matter, and Stephen Jimenez has brought us closer to the truth.
Mark David Beck
Criminal Defense Investigator/
Montana State Office of the Public Defender
Laramie Police Department/ Retired
October 13, 2013
Dreadful. It's not because revelations about Matt Shepard not being a saint are disturbing (read Judy Shepard's memoir of her son), but because his book is completely undocumented --- there is a list of those interviewed at the end, although no specifics as to when the interviews may have been conducted. Are they recent enough to represent the subject's thoughts on the events of 1998 in 2013? There is no index. Jimenez notes at the end of the book and in the opening that more than twenty other sources requested anonymity, and that he will indicate these sources with an asterisk. Which he dutifully does, but this is a book with a lot of names, and the reader who is not completely attentive may find himself wondering exactly whom is speaking? So there's that. Moreover, the bulk of the "interviews" are reframed to be part of the narrative. Again, Jimenez does tell the reader that he has "recreated" conversations for which he was not present. Once. The difficulty, as with the sources, lies in sorting those conversations out. There is very little context provided for direct quotes, either, so one is left to wonder about the extent of cherry-picking that is going on.
Jimenez seems to have based what he is doing, consciously or unconsciously, on Truman Capote's In Cold Blood, a book that I absolutely detest (but which unlike The Book of Matt is at least readable). He even becomes emotionally involved with Russell Henderson, as Capote did with one of the Clutter killers, as well as Russell's grandmother and a man he identifies as Matthew Shepard's lover, Tim Henson. He is also close to prosecutor Cal Rerucha, who made a point at the time of not calling the Shepard murder a "hate crime", but who also --- significantly --- does not wind up endorsing Jimenez's version of the murder, either.
Jimenez's basic theory is that Matthew was a meth dealer, Aaron McKinney was a meth dealer, and that both of them were being pimped out by Doc O'Connor, who ran a limousine service (among other things) in Laramie. Jimenez's murder was largely a drug deal gone wrong, with McKinney exacting vengeance upon Shepard as part of what might have been a larger conspiracy. Henderson was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time --- and no matter how maudlin Jimenez gets about Henderson, Henderson himself does not deny his responsibility for his actions that night. McKinney himself denies Jimenez's version. None of this is substantiated with anything like hard evidence.
No one who knew Matthew has ever maintained that he was a saint, including his mother. Jimenez, who has lost all claims to objectivity by the conclusion of this mess, is working through his own issues, and I don't even want to speculate what those may be --- which is more than he allows Matthew Shepard. Again and again he casts himself as his own hero, fearlessly investigating this murder despite his own personal danger. I snorted particularly hard at his description of his last interview with Aaron McKinney, who cut him off for violating certain agreements when Jimenez's 20/20 piece ran about eight years ago. Jimenez wants the reader to believe that he feared for his life as he sat "unguarded" with McKinney in prison. Get over yourself, Mr. Jimenez. They do not simply allow convicted killers to meet reporters without someone observing them, and they are searched both before and after meetings for weapons or other contraband.
Shame on Andrew Sullivan for putting a blurb on the dust jacket.
This is the literary equivalent of Oliver Stone's JFK. At every turn, Jimenez throws a conspiracy theory against the wall to see if it will stick.
They don't.
Jimenez seems to have based what he is doing, consciously or unconsciously, on Truman Capote's In Cold Blood, a book that I absolutely detest (but which unlike The Book of Matt is at least readable). He even becomes emotionally involved with Russell Henderson, as Capote did with one of the Clutter killers, as well as Russell's grandmother and a man he identifies as Matthew Shepard's lover, Tim Henson. He is also close to prosecutor Cal Rerucha, who made a point at the time of not calling the Shepard murder a "hate crime", but who also --- significantly --- does not wind up endorsing Jimenez's version of the murder, either.
Jimenez's basic theory is that Matthew was a meth dealer, Aaron McKinney was a meth dealer, and that both of them were being pimped out by Doc O'Connor, who ran a limousine service (among other things) in Laramie. Jimenez's murder was largely a drug deal gone wrong, with McKinney exacting vengeance upon Shepard as part of what might have been a larger conspiracy. Henderson was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time --- and no matter how maudlin Jimenez gets about Henderson, Henderson himself does not deny his responsibility for his actions that night. McKinney himself denies Jimenez's version. None of this is substantiated with anything like hard evidence.
No one who knew Matthew has ever maintained that he was a saint, including his mother. Jimenez, who has lost all claims to objectivity by the conclusion of this mess, is working through his own issues, and I don't even want to speculate what those may be --- which is more than he allows Matthew Shepard. Again and again he casts himself as his own hero, fearlessly investigating this murder despite his own personal danger. I snorted particularly hard at his description of his last interview with Aaron McKinney, who cut him off for violating certain agreements when Jimenez's 20/20 piece ran about eight years ago. Jimenez wants the reader to believe that he feared for his life as he sat "unguarded" with McKinney in prison. Get over yourself, Mr. Jimenez. They do not simply allow convicted killers to meet reporters without someone observing them, and they are searched both before and after meetings for weapons or other contraband.
Shame on Andrew Sullivan for putting a blurb on the dust jacket.
This is the literary equivalent of Oliver Stone's JFK. At every turn, Jimenez throws a conspiracy theory against the wall to see if it will stick.
They don't.
July 26, 2013
Wow, this book is intense. There was so much complexity in the Matthew Shepard case that was overlooked or deliberately obscured. Jimenez makes the argument that the anti-gay hate crime explanation (rather than the reality of methamphetamine trafficking) was easier and more useful for pretty much every party involved: for the murderers who wanted to protect their drug collaborators, for police and prosecutors who knew that the meth trade was a much larger problem to tackle than homophobia, for heartbroken friends and family who needed a cause to channel their grief into, for activists who needed a martyr to catalyze a movement, for a president facing scandal and impeachment who needed a smoke screen, for media outlets who wanted a story before all the facts were known... Matthew Shepard's brutal murder will always be a tragedy, but this book suggests that the tragedy is nuanced and complex, rather than the simplistic myth the public demanded and came quickly to accept, and the lessons to be learned cut through to the deepest foundations of society.
February 25, 2014
The book is bad; there's no getting around it. But it's not bad because of what Jimenez reveals about the murder of Matthew Shepard and most people's intense desire to believe it was an anti-gay hate crime (in short: it wasn't). Instead it's bad because Stephen Jimenez is a bad writer. Instead of casting the narrative as a story of who Matthew Shepard was and what happened in the years and days leading up to his murder (which could then reveal the "hidden truths" of the subtitle), the book is staged as a journey with Stephen Jimenez into finding out these hidden truths. And it's remarkably tiresome. The worst part is that he jumps around between events and interviews and characters and storylines in a dizzying production of one non sequitur after another. But he also aggrandizes his own involvement and fear for his life as he uncovered the meth trade in Laramie and Denver. In short, there was way too much Jimenez for me, and sometimes not enough Shepard.
While I agree with other reviewers that Jimenez could have done much more to document precisely which facts came from which sources (footnotes would have been fine with me), and he could have included an index in the book, I was actually mostly fine with the content of the research. The upshot is that Shepard knew Aaron McKinney, his primary murderer, pretty well. They had had sex on numerous occasions, were both meth dealers in Laramie, and sometimes worked (or were coerced into working) as escorts for a sleazy man named Doc O'Connor. It wasn't a hate crime; instead it was a meth-induced rage killing that probably had to do with either attempting to rob Shepard of money/meth that McKinney believed he had or as some payback for Shepard's moving into others' drug-dealing territory. No matter what precisely it was, I'm utterly convinced it wasn't a hate crime perpetrated by two guys (Russell Henderson seems largely to have been an unwilling accomplice, but not the actual murderer) who reacted with rage when a male stranger came on to them.
The cover-up -- gay panic defense, hate crime -- worked for everyone. McKinney doesn't have to reveal any of his meth cronies, and doesn't have to reveal he was bisexual. The Shepards (and some of Matthew's friends) don't have to talk about Matthew's less than savory occupation. And when presented with only part of the evidence, both the mainstream media, gay rights organizations, and the Clinton White House read it (plausibly) as a hate crime.
I'm no conservative and I marched through the streets of Manhattan with my then-boyfriend at an angry candlelight vigil in the wake of Shepard's death. I'm not sure that knowing what really happened changes much of anything. McKinney and Henderson still murdered him, and it was still tragic and brutal and horrifying. The story of why they did so is simply more complicated. What Jimenez didn't say, but could have, is that countless other queer people before and after Shepard have been murdered at the hands of people who hate us. Some combination of the brutality of this murder, the fresh-faced innocent whiteness of Shepard himself, and the suppression of so much of the real story worked to turn Shepard into the poster-boy for hate crime legislation. The lesson here might be that we need to pay more attention when a poor, black, transgender sex-worker is murdered; that's anti-queer violence, too. If this account is to be believed, it is probably much more so. And it's deserving of our attention.
While I agree with other reviewers that Jimenez could have done much more to document precisely which facts came from which sources (footnotes would have been fine with me), and he could have included an index in the book, I was actually mostly fine with the content of the research. The upshot is that Shepard knew Aaron McKinney, his primary murderer, pretty well. They had had sex on numerous occasions, were both meth dealers in Laramie, and sometimes worked (or were coerced into working) as escorts for a sleazy man named Doc O'Connor. It wasn't a hate crime; instead it was a meth-induced rage killing that probably had to do with either attempting to rob Shepard of money/meth that McKinney believed he had or as some payback for Shepard's moving into others' drug-dealing territory. No matter what precisely it was, I'm utterly convinced it wasn't a hate crime perpetrated by two guys (Russell Henderson seems largely to have been an unwilling accomplice, but not the actual murderer) who reacted with rage when a male stranger came on to them.
The cover-up -- gay panic defense, hate crime -- worked for everyone. McKinney doesn't have to reveal any of his meth cronies, and doesn't have to reveal he was bisexual. The Shepards (and some of Matthew's friends) don't have to talk about Matthew's less than savory occupation. And when presented with only part of the evidence, both the mainstream media, gay rights organizations, and the Clinton White House read it (plausibly) as a hate crime.
I'm no conservative and I marched through the streets of Manhattan with my then-boyfriend at an angry candlelight vigil in the wake of Shepard's death. I'm not sure that knowing what really happened changes much of anything. McKinney and Henderson still murdered him, and it was still tragic and brutal and horrifying. The story of why they did so is simply more complicated. What Jimenez didn't say, but could have, is that countless other queer people before and after Shepard have been murdered at the hands of people who hate us. Some combination of the brutality of this murder, the fresh-faced innocent whiteness of Shepard himself, and the suppression of so much of the real story worked to turn Shepard into the poster-boy for hate crime legislation. The lesson here might be that we need to pay more attention when a poor, black, transgender sex-worker is murdered; that's anti-queer violence, too. If this account is to be believed, it is probably much more so. And it's deserving of our attention.
March 31, 2014
As a person born and raised in Laramie, and one who went to school with both Aaron and Russell, I was very interested to read what new material Mr. Jimenez had discovered. I was blown away at the new revelations and buried facts from the case. There is quite a bit of material that is brought to light, some of it for the first time. How different would things be now for many people involved if this material would have been brought up in the days and weeks after the murder and leading up to the trial? I highly recommend this book to people interested in Matthew Shepard, his life, and tragic death. Mr. Jimenez's research and commitment to this project is impressive. Five stars!
November 9, 2013
The Matthew Shepard story was pretty much "that moment" in history for me, at least until 9/11. When it happened, I was a gay man in college having only come out to my parents four years before. Events like the death of JFK or Martin Luther King certainly affect us because they are a part of this country's history, but when history is made during our lifetime it becomes a different kind of resonation.
I admit that prior to reading this book, to me, the Matthew Shepard murder was a hate crime and it made Matthew into a martyr or symbol for the struggle that homosexuals have endured everywhere and the hate we face. Stephen Jimenez, the author, thought the same thing until he visited Laramie years later intending to write a story about the case. The prosecuting attorney advised Jimenez to take a deeper look. Court documents and evidence had just become available and Jimenez found an odd and anonymous letter among the documents addressed to the attorney himself. This prompted Jimenez to take the story in a different direction.
He discovered Matthew was a casual drug user, particularly a meth user and seller. It is already well-known that Matthew's killers, Russell Henderson and Aaron McKinney, were drug users. Jimenez soon exposes an odd relationship that ties these three men together, suggesting that Matthew's murder was not what the media made it out to be. So why was this also avoided during the trial?
Through numerous interviews of friends, lovers, and acquaintances of Matthew, Jimenez paints a pretty solid picture of the "real" Matthew Shepard and directly shows how the media turned this story into something completely different, the anti-gay hate crime it is known as today. Many have ridiculed this book, even before reading it, and I would urge those people to do some research of their own. I like to keep an open mind about such things and cure my own ignorance, so I did just that. If a person or event came up in the book and I wanted to know more, I stopped to research it a bit more just as Jimenez did.
Jimenez cites all of his sources and interviewees. Some wanted to remain anonymous, mostly because of their own ties to the drug trade in Wyoming. He even tells you when they could be lying to him or hesitating to tell the real story. What is really interesting is when one person does reveal a small piece of the puzzle, and then another completely different person reveals that same thing or another piece that fits. One example of this is the possibility that Aaron and Matthew knew each other before that night and had sold/bought drugs from one another, or possibly even had sex together before. Aaron's bisexuality is referenced again and again, but was also a subject the courts avoided.
Jimenez does not change the picture we have of Matthew already; he just makes it clearer. We still see Matthew as a sad, depressed, friendly, and frail boy who never knew a stranger. Matthew's own mother admitted that he "self-medicated" so his drug use is not a new topic either. The sexual abuse that both Matthew and Aaron had experienced in their past was new to me though, as was the possibility the two men knew each other prior to that night. Jimenez also explains the part that Henderson played in the crime and how he was really only guilty of associating with the wrong people.
Jimenez also exposes how this case became an accelerant for Clinton's hate crime bill which was before Congress at the time, and that's probably why the two guilty men received such heavy sentencing. America was watching so the court had to set an example, despite crimes that were just as harsh that happened around the same time in Laramie and those guilty received lesser sentences. One of these crimes was the death of Henderson's own mother which happened less than four months after Matthew was killed.
Do I accept Jimenez's book as the new truth as to what happened that night? No. It doesn't change the fact that what happened to Matthew was horrible and wrong. And it won't change the sadness I felt from it. But I will admit he's opened my eyes a bit wider to this story, and any book that can do that is worth reading. It's proof that you should not always believe the media and you should definitely question everything!
I admit that prior to reading this book, to me, the Matthew Shepard murder was a hate crime and it made Matthew into a martyr or symbol for the struggle that homosexuals have endured everywhere and the hate we face. Stephen Jimenez, the author, thought the same thing until he visited Laramie years later intending to write a story about the case. The prosecuting attorney advised Jimenez to take a deeper look. Court documents and evidence had just become available and Jimenez found an odd and anonymous letter among the documents addressed to the attorney himself. This prompted Jimenez to take the story in a different direction.
He discovered Matthew was a casual drug user, particularly a meth user and seller. It is already well-known that Matthew's killers, Russell Henderson and Aaron McKinney, were drug users. Jimenez soon exposes an odd relationship that ties these three men together, suggesting that Matthew's murder was not what the media made it out to be. So why was this also avoided during the trial?
Through numerous interviews of friends, lovers, and acquaintances of Matthew, Jimenez paints a pretty solid picture of the "real" Matthew Shepard and directly shows how the media turned this story into something completely different, the anti-gay hate crime it is known as today. Many have ridiculed this book, even before reading it, and I would urge those people to do some research of their own. I like to keep an open mind about such things and cure my own ignorance, so I did just that. If a person or event came up in the book and I wanted to know more, I stopped to research it a bit more just as Jimenez did.
Jimenez cites all of his sources and interviewees. Some wanted to remain anonymous, mostly because of their own ties to the drug trade in Wyoming. He even tells you when they could be lying to him or hesitating to tell the real story. What is really interesting is when one person does reveal a small piece of the puzzle, and then another completely different person reveals that same thing or another piece that fits. One example of this is the possibility that Aaron and Matthew knew each other before that night and had sold/bought drugs from one another, or possibly even had sex together before. Aaron's bisexuality is referenced again and again, but was also a subject the courts avoided.
Jimenez does not change the picture we have of Matthew already; he just makes it clearer. We still see Matthew as a sad, depressed, friendly, and frail boy who never knew a stranger. Matthew's own mother admitted that he "self-medicated" so his drug use is not a new topic either. The sexual abuse that both Matthew and Aaron had experienced in their past was new to me though, as was the possibility the two men knew each other prior to that night. Jimenez also explains the part that Henderson played in the crime and how he was really only guilty of associating with the wrong people.
Jimenez also exposes how this case became an accelerant for Clinton's hate crime bill which was before Congress at the time, and that's probably why the two guilty men received such heavy sentencing. America was watching so the court had to set an example, despite crimes that were just as harsh that happened around the same time in Laramie and those guilty received lesser sentences. One of these crimes was the death of Henderson's own mother which happened less than four months after Matthew was killed.
Do I accept Jimenez's book as the new truth as to what happened that night? No. It doesn't change the fact that what happened to Matthew was horrible and wrong. And it won't change the sadness I felt from it. But I will admit he's opened my eyes a bit wider to this story, and any book that can do that is worth reading. It's proof that you should not always believe the media and you should definitely question everything!
August 11, 2023
An interesting read which provides a critique of the justice system, the media's penchant to frame issues, drug addiction and much more.
On the other hand, I found the editing annoying. Information was presented 2 or 3 times, and there was a complete over-use of [sic]. I believe that if you quote someone who is speaking, you should just provide their words and trust readers enough to form their own judgements regarding those words. Not here. Quotes were riddled with [sic], even though there is much room for debate between what is proper and acceptable in written and spoken language. Vernacular language is not erroneous! Instead of just giving the reader the voice of the speaker, that voice is constantly interrupted by pompous editing declaring error! error! error!
Jimeniz repeatedly mentions interview subjects feeling betrayed by the media. This condescending book, in this respect, also fails to be respectful. Seriously, are you really going to interview someone's grandmother, and then pepper her quotes with [sic]?
Couple of examples. The usage "off of work" is rendered as "off of [sic] work". See, the editing makes it worse! Perhaps the worst examples are the jail house notes being exchanged between Russ and his girlfriend. These are handwritten notes written in a kind of shorthand that everyone can clearly understand. For example "cuz" instead of "because". Can we just please read the notes? No! The editor has to be a pompous ass, judging these notes from a great height; "cuz" becomes "cuz [sic]"; and "15 min" (clearly meaning "15 minutes") is also judged to be an erroneous usage. Ultimately, the pompous editor made me hate this book because the pompous editor interrupted everyone else and was always standing between me and the speaker. There, I just deleted another star.
Jimenez has strong arguments here, and much evidence, but also descends into pure speculation.
On the other hand, I found the editing annoying. Information was presented 2 or 3 times, and there was a complete over-use of [sic]. I believe that if you quote someone who is speaking, you should just provide their words and trust readers enough to form their own judgements regarding those words. Not here. Quotes were riddled with [sic], even though there is much room for debate between what is proper and acceptable in written and spoken language. Vernacular language is not erroneous! Instead of just giving the reader the voice of the speaker, that voice is constantly interrupted by pompous editing declaring error! error! error!
Jimeniz repeatedly mentions interview subjects feeling betrayed by the media. This condescending book, in this respect, also fails to be respectful. Seriously, are you really going to interview someone's grandmother, and then pepper her quotes with [sic]?
Couple of examples. The usage "off of work" is rendered as "off of [sic] work". See, the editing makes it worse! Perhaps the worst examples are the jail house notes being exchanged between Russ and his girlfriend. These are handwritten notes written in a kind of shorthand that everyone can clearly understand. For example "cuz" instead of "because". Can we just please read the notes? No! The editor has to be a pompous ass, judging these notes from a great height; "cuz" becomes "cuz [sic]"; and "15 min" (clearly meaning "15 minutes") is also judged to be an erroneous usage. Ultimately, the pompous editor made me hate this book because the pompous editor interrupted everyone else and was always standing between me and the speaker. There, I just deleted another star.
Jimenez has strong arguments here, and much evidence, but also descends into pure speculation.
October 20, 2013
Just finished reading this book and I'm glad that I did. I understand fully why people perceive it to be an attempt to discredit or blame a victim, which is admittedly what i thought when I first saw it on display. It is actually an attempt to look at what gets lost when any person is portrayed in any extreme - be it perfect icon or hated demon - and seeks to bring understanding to the notion that there is no person who is truly either extreme. The sources in this book range from the prosecutor who oversaw the case and has some regrets based on things he didn't know or fully understand at the time to people who held back sharing what they knew out of seemingly genuine fears and also probably immaturity. When I began reading it, I wondered if I would be angry at what I read or disappointed by re-examining something I accepted as finished. In reality, reading something that looked at the gray between what was black and white was comforting.
October 2, 2013
I was thirteen at the time of Matthew Shepard's murder thus this crime was not even on my radar.
That having been said, it took me several days to write this review if only to see it level-headed. There was so much to absorb. The one consistency throughout the book is how Matthew died, but the question I feel The Book of Matt asked was why.
While I was reading Stephen Jimenez's book I was reminded of Dave Cullen's Columbine. This is because in both books the author debunks certain myths of the assault. In Columbine, Cassie Bernell professed her belief in God seconds before she dies. Matthew Shepard's hate crime struck a sympathetic cord with people. Both became martyrs overnight. Couldn't we let it lie if only for their parent's sake? Then again, is it worse to let it fester? I think it is a matter of what people want to believe.
I think a prime example is a discussion I was having with my mother on books we were currently reading. All I had to say was "I'm reading a book on Matthew Shepard" and she immediately cut me off stating "the anti-gay hate crime." It is what the media has put out there, therefore it must be true.
Jimenez leads us to the conclusion that it was not a hate crime but rather a cover-up for a drug related crime. The first conclusion being a telephone game, shrinking in truth as it goes around the circle.
I was amazed by the vast amount of information the author laid out for the reader both leading up to and the aftermath of Matthew's killing. With multiple interviews brimming with information, it was enough to take me for a spin. Although, despite the plethora of knowledge several of the interviewers chose to remain anonymous, and while I realize that was their choice it sometimes had me question their reliability. In any event, it was all very eye-opening.
Another thing I noticed is that the author draws a picture of Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson portraying them as people rather than the criminals they are. It was very Truman Capote style.
My conclusion? I feel that evidence was "misplaced" and methamphetamine did play a role. Perhaps a hate crime was easier to explain? Although I've never understood why you don't call a spade a spade.
The one truth I am certain of is that on October 6, 1998 Matthew Shepard was heinously killed, no matter what the motive that cannot be changed.
I received a copy from the publisher in exchange for an honest review
That having been said, it took me several days to write this review if only to see it level-headed. There was so much to absorb. The one consistency throughout the book is how Matthew died, but the question I feel The Book of Matt asked was why.
While I was reading Stephen Jimenez's book I was reminded of Dave Cullen's Columbine. This is because in both books the author debunks certain myths of the assault. In Columbine, Cassie Bernell professed her belief in God seconds before she dies. Matthew Shepard's hate crime struck a sympathetic cord with people. Both became martyrs overnight. Couldn't we let it lie if only for their parent's sake? Then again, is it worse to let it fester? I think it is a matter of what people want to believe.
I think a prime example is a discussion I was having with my mother on books we were currently reading. All I had to say was "I'm reading a book on Matthew Shepard" and she immediately cut me off stating "the anti-gay hate crime." It is what the media has put out there, therefore it must be true.
Jimenez leads us to the conclusion that it was not a hate crime but rather a cover-up for a drug related crime. The first conclusion being a telephone game, shrinking in truth as it goes around the circle.
I was amazed by the vast amount of information the author laid out for the reader both leading up to and the aftermath of Matthew's killing. With multiple interviews brimming with information, it was enough to take me for a spin. Although, despite the plethora of knowledge several of the interviewers chose to remain anonymous, and while I realize that was their choice it sometimes had me question their reliability. In any event, it was all very eye-opening.
Another thing I noticed is that the author draws a picture of Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson portraying them as people rather than the criminals they are. It was very Truman Capote style.
My conclusion? I feel that evidence was "misplaced" and methamphetamine did play a role. Perhaps a hate crime was easier to explain? Although I've never understood why you don't call a spade a spade.
The one truth I am certain of is that on October 6, 1998 Matthew Shepard was heinously killed, no matter what the motive that cannot be changed.
I received a copy from the publisher in exchange for an honest review
December 4, 2013
Good lord, Stephen, take a few more journalism classes before attempting something this lofty.
Mathew Shepard was a meth dealer and his murder was a drug hit. No one, not the accused, nor meth-using cops, nor Shepard's friends and family, wanted police/media attention drawn to the drug issue, so the defense, the media, the Clinton Administration (which sought to deflect Lewinsky scandal with anti-hate-crime legislation), and many of Shepard's loved ones exploited the suggestion that he was gay bashed.
Jimenez digs up ample evidence to support these claims and it's great that somebody did the leg work. The public aftermath of the Shepard murder was traumatic: Long before marriage equality, back when Ellen couldn't stay on the air, Shepard's murder fed the perceived victimization that so many LGBT Americans had internalized. While violent, anti-gay hate crimes still do occur and the so-called gay panic explanation for Shepard's murder was believable at the time, it was not the truth. The public was lied to and it's a good thing that someone has unearthed the ugly details.
Unfortunately, the author is a screenwriter still learning what it means to be a journalist. Instead of skillfully reconstructing childhoods and routines in a consistently chronological or thematic sequence, Jimenez instead tells the story of his inquiry. A more skilled writer could probably turn the investigation into a gripping narrative; Jimenez explains that this research consumed a decade of his life and occasionally jeopardized his security but at no point does the reader empathize. Rather, the personal reflections get in the way, detracting from the mystery. Moreover, Jimenez insinuates himself into the story only partially, confessing fear or intrigue without painting a full picture of his own circumstance. In one passage he describes his own brazen behavior early on in the project, "when I was younger and single," but there is no description of an attachment outside of the investigation -- occasionally fellow journalists or news producers appear, but no friends or lovers express concern about Jimenez's wellbeing or help him reflect on the endeavor.
Instead, the book reads like a pile of research notes: out of sequence, highly repetitive, and incomplete. The middle third of the book approximates a less author-focused, somewhat chronological narrative and if a reader were to finish only a portion of the work, this section would be the most informative and least frustrating. But even after reading the entire book, the story feels incomplete. Jimenez quotes extensively from Shepard's father's public statements but it appears he never actually interviewed either parent. Some figures (those more forthcoming to Jimenez) are thoroughly fleshed out, although in those cases the person's relationship with the author becomes at least significant as their relationship with Shepard.
The most glaring shortcoming is the absence of a full portrait of Matt. Jimenez makes numerous references to traumatic childhood experiences that probably led to Shepard's drug abuse and shares anecdotal accounts from college friends describing the young man's insecurities, but at no point do we feel that we know Matt. Throughout the book, he remains an icon: a pushy but malleable, depressed, effeminate young man who excelled at running meth. Reprisals of his parents' public statements add incrementally more color, but there are no meaningful depictions of Matt as a boy and, because his biography is shared out of sequence, no transformative arc.
Jimenez is also unable to definitively explain why Shepard was killed, but in this case the ambiguity is forgivable given the impracticality of further investigation. The battery of interviews Jimenez conducted strongly suggest that Shepherd's killer, Aaron McKinney, was trying to track down a missing drug shipment at the time of the murder, but there is no solid evidence and the strongest case made is that McKinney was in a drug-induced rage at the time of the killing -- he could have been avenging a theft, or he could have just been really angry over being broke. Jimenez argues that McKinney's primary motivation in using the gay panic defense, framing the murder as a hate crime, was to divert attention away from his superiors in the meth crew. Thus, there's no incentive for McKinney to reveal the whole truth, there is no way to prove definitively what his motivations were and, because of the drugs, even an honest account by McKinney might not be credible.
Ultimately, The Book of Matt is an unclassifiable work. Not pure journalism, hardly memoir, nor a history book, it's a haphazardly organized and under-edited compilation of facts and reactions assembled by a well-meaning man with an unyielding passion for the story and occasional support from major news organizations, but without the discipline required to construct a seamless narrative, let alone an enjoyable read.
Mathew Shepard was a meth dealer and his murder was a drug hit. No one, not the accused, nor meth-using cops, nor Shepard's friends and family, wanted police/media attention drawn to the drug issue, so the defense, the media, the Clinton Administration (which sought to deflect Lewinsky scandal with anti-hate-crime legislation), and many of Shepard's loved ones exploited the suggestion that he was gay bashed.
Jimenez digs up ample evidence to support these claims and it's great that somebody did the leg work. The public aftermath of the Shepard murder was traumatic: Long before marriage equality, back when Ellen couldn't stay on the air, Shepard's murder fed the perceived victimization that so many LGBT Americans had internalized. While violent, anti-gay hate crimes still do occur and the so-called gay panic explanation for Shepard's murder was believable at the time, it was not the truth. The public was lied to and it's a good thing that someone has unearthed the ugly details.
Unfortunately, the author is a screenwriter still learning what it means to be a journalist. Instead of skillfully reconstructing childhoods and routines in a consistently chronological or thematic sequence, Jimenez instead tells the story of his inquiry. A more skilled writer could probably turn the investigation into a gripping narrative; Jimenez explains that this research consumed a decade of his life and occasionally jeopardized his security but at no point does the reader empathize. Rather, the personal reflections get in the way, detracting from the mystery. Moreover, Jimenez insinuates himself into the story only partially, confessing fear or intrigue without painting a full picture of his own circumstance. In one passage he describes his own brazen behavior early on in the project, "when I was younger and single," but there is no description of an attachment outside of the investigation -- occasionally fellow journalists or news producers appear, but no friends or lovers express concern about Jimenez's wellbeing or help him reflect on the endeavor.
Instead, the book reads like a pile of research notes: out of sequence, highly repetitive, and incomplete. The middle third of the book approximates a less author-focused, somewhat chronological narrative and if a reader were to finish only a portion of the work, this section would be the most informative and least frustrating. But even after reading the entire book, the story feels incomplete. Jimenez quotes extensively from Shepard's father's public statements but it appears he never actually interviewed either parent. Some figures (those more forthcoming to Jimenez) are thoroughly fleshed out, although in those cases the person's relationship with the author becomes at least significant as their relationship with Shepard.
The most glaring shortcoming is the absence of a full portrait of Matt. Jimenez makes numerous references to traumatic childhood experiences that probably led to Shepard's drug abuse and shares anecdotal accounts from college friends describing the young man's insecurities, but at no point do we feel that we know Matt. Throughout the book, he remains an icon: a pushy but malleable, depressed, effeminate young man who excelled at running meth. Reprisals of his parents' public statements add incrementally more color, but there are no meaningful depictions of Matt as a boy and, because his biography is shared out of sequence, no transformative arc.
Jimenez is also unable to definitively explain why Shepard was killed, but in this case the ambiguity is forgivable given the impracticality of further investigation. The battery of interviews Jimenez conducted strongly suggest that Shepherd's killer, Aaron McKinney, was trying to track down a missing drug shipment at the time of the murder, but there is no solid evidence and the strongest case made is that McKinney was in a drug-induced rage at the time of the killing -- he could have been avenging a theft, or he could have just been really angry over being broke. Jimenez argues that McKinney's primary motivation in using the gay panic defense, framing the murder as a hate crime, was to divert attention away from his superiors in the meth crew. Thus, there's no incentive for McKinney to reveal the whole truth, there is no way to prove definitively what his motivations were and, because of the drugs, even an honest account by McKinney might not be credible.
Ultimately, The Book of Matt is an unclassifiable work. Not pure journalism, hardly memoir, nor a history book, it's a haphazardly organized and under-edited compilation of facts and reactions assembled by a well-meaning man with an unyielding passion for the story and occasional support from major news organizations, but without the discipline required to construct a seamless narrative, let alone an enjoyable read.
October 6, 2013
This book will make you question what you thought you believed to be true about the Matthew Shepard case. If award-winning journalist Stephen Jimenez has anything to teach us, it is that the media is often the least trustworthy source of news that you will ever find.
November 13, 2013
Amazing how this hate crime wasnt about hate, but about drugs and trafficking.
August 26, 2014
ARC for review.
File this under "I read it so you don't have to" - but, make no mistake, I have no problem with Jimenez's conclusions, necessarily (although some could have used stronger sources). My issue is that this really should have been a nice little article in Rolling Stone and Jimenez's efforts to turn it into what seemed to be a 900 page book (my ARC didn't have page numbers) rendered it a slog.
First, the title of the book should have been, THE BOOK OF MATT: WHAT I LEARNED ABOUT MATTHEW SHEPARD OVER TEN YEARS AND HOW I PERSONALLY FELT ABOUT EVERY BIT OF IT, INCLUDING HOW I OFTEN GOT REALLY NERVOUS AND PARANOID ABOUT NOTHING AT ALL. Nothing annoys me more than a nonfiction writer who makes him/herself a large part of the story for no reason (see also, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks....this is what afterwords are for, people.
Second, here is what Jimenez knows, thinks he knows and/or believes:
1. The death of Matthew Shepard had next to nothing to do with the fact that Matt was gay.
2. The death of Matthew Shepard had everything to do with sex for hire and methamphetamine.
3. Number 2 was not covered in the trial because the prosecution wanted the death penalty and would have much better luck if this was considered a hate crime and the defense knew that unmasking Aaron McKinney as a gay (or bisexual) tattletale would do him no favors in prison.
3. The media turned Matthew Shepard into a gay Emmet Till and ought not have done so, because Matthew wasn't killed because he was gay.
4. Methamphetamine is everywhere and it is bad.
5. Russell Henderson is generally a good guy who got caught up in a bad situation.
6. Laramie police and public officials may have covered up various and sundry things, including the involvement of Doc O'Connor, the business of meth in Laramie, and/or the fact that Matt may have been killed because he "knew too much" (Jimenez refers to this a lot, but I'm not sure that even he knows exactly what Matthew knew).
Jimenez spared us most of the gruesome details of Shepard's death, as he should have, because there's no question Matthew died a sad, lonely death. For Jimenez the question is why did he die and, since he didn't die as part of some "gay panic" (this reference is made several times), what his death should mean in the wider scope of equality for gay people. Those are all fair questions, but, unfortunately it was too long, the author involved himself too much and some of the allegations are not sufficiently substantiated such that I just couldn't enjoy this.
Edited August 26, 2014 to add:
In the interest of full disclosure I received the following e-mail from the publisher after posting my review. Take from it what you will:
Dear Erin,
While I appreciate your review and your personal opinion, I fear you may have missed much of the information that corroborates what Jimenez writes. I wish to direct you to the Random House author page:
http://www.randomhouse.com/author/171...
As well as to the interviews with Andrew Sullivan, one of which addresses your concern about sources:
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/?s=jim...
I do not ask you to change your review, because it is important that reviewers have the freedom of speech to provide their own personal analysis unhindered by direct influences, but wanted to share these links as a means of personal enrichment, as you seem to be one who would be genuinely interested in further information.
Thank you,
HPS / Steerforth Press
File this under "I read it so you don't have to" - but, make no mistake, I have no problem with Jimenez's conclusions, necessarily (although some could have used stronger sources). My issue is that this really should have been a nice little article in Rolling Stone and Jimenez's efforts to turn it into what seemed to be a 900 page book (my ARC didn't have page numbers) rendered it a slog.
First, the title of the book should have been, THE BOOK OF MATT: WHAT I LEARNED ABOUT MATTHEW SHEPARD OVER TEN YEARS AND HOW I PERSONALLY FELT ABOUT EVERY BIT OF IT, INCLUDING HOW I OFTEN GOT REALLY NERVOUS AND PARANOID ABOUT NOTHING AT ALL. Nothing annoys me more than a nonfiction writer who makes him/herself a large part of the story for no reason (see also, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks....this is what afterwords are for, people.
Second, here is what Jimenez knows, thinks he knows and/or believes:
1. The death of Matthew Shepard had next to nothing to do with the fact that Matt was gay.
2. The death of Matthew Shepard had everything to do with sex for hire and methamphetamine.
3. Number 2 was not covered in the trial because the prosecution wanted the death penalty and would have much better luck if this was considered a hate crime and the defense knew that unmasking Aaron McKinney as a gay (or bisexual) tattletale would do him no favors in prison.
3. The media turned Matthew Shepard into a gay Emmet Till and ought not have done so, because Matthew wasn't killed because he was gay.
4. Methamphetamine is everywhere and it is bad.
5. Russell Henderson is generally a good guy who got caught up in a bad situation.
6. Laramie police and public officials may have covered up various and sundry things, including the involvement of Doc O'Connor, the business of meth in Laramie, and/or the fact that Matt may have been killed because he "knew too much" (Jimenez refers to this a lot, but I'm not sure that even he knows exactly what Matthew knew).
Jimenez spared us most of the gruesome details of Shepard's death, as he should have, because there's no question Matthew died a sad, lonely death. For Jimenez the question is why did he die and, since he didn't die as part of some "gay panic" (this reference is made several times), what his death should mean in the wider scope of equality for gay people. Those are all fair questions, but, unfortunately it was too long, the author involved himself too much and some of the allegations are not sufficiently substantiated such that I just couldn't enjoy this.
Edited August 26, 2014 to add:
In the interest of full disclosure I received the following e-mail from the publisher after posting my review. Take from it what you will:
Dear Erin,
While I appreciate your review and your personal opinion, I fear you may have missed much of the information that corroborates what Jimenez writes. I wish to direct you to the Random House author page:
http://www.randomhouse.com/author/171...
As well as to the interviews with Andrew Sullivan, one of which addresses your concern about sources:
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/?s=jim...
I do not ask you to change your review, because it is important that reviewers have the freedom of speech to provide their own personal analysis unhindered by direct influences, but wanted to share these links as a means of personal enrichment, as you seem to be one who would be genuinely interested in further information.
Thank you,
HPS / Steerforth Press
October 17, 2013
A curious book that wants to be a radical exposé but winds up adding perhaps unnecessary confusion to the murder narrative that sparked the hate crime movement and was instrumental in making LGBT rights a national civil rights cause. Jimenez, who keeps reminding us that he himself is gay, would have us believe that Matthew Shepard and his murderer Aaron McKinney were sometime friends, occasional lovers, and ultimately rival meth dealers. The prevailing view of the grisly murder is that it was fueled by anti-gay hatred and panic on McKinney's part. McKinney may have been high on meth at the time, which could have increased the brutality, but revulsion at Shepard's homosexuality, perhaps exacerbated by the fact that Matt had only $30 in his wallet, was the primary motive. Jimenez locates Matt Shepard in a dark, tacky, marginal small town western drug underworld. He interviews a lot of characters who may have been part of that world. Most of them are not terribly interesting. Worse, Jimenez keeps circling back to these people in chapter after chapter, so that they become a muddle in the reader's mind and don't advance the story. His most flamboyant character is a ballsy con artist called Doc O'Connor who runs something called Doc's Classy Limousine Service, which is a front for meth runs from Laramie to Denver and back, with frisky sex thrown in if you want it. Doc is the source of Jimenez's smoking gun story that, on one of these runs, Aaron McKinney and Matthew Shepard, along with another shady hanger-on, got naked and had an orgy in the limo's spacious back seat. It's crucial to Jimenez's case that Matthew and Aaron knew each other before the night of the murder. The problem is he never quite proves this, nor does he substantiate that Matthew was a dealer as well as a user. The book is too long, because Jimenez's thesis is obvious and he doesn't do a great deal to develop it. For all that, it does make Matthew Shepard a more complex character than the innocent angel portrayed in media and literary accounts, and when Jimenez gets to the actual trials of McKinney and his sidekick Russell Henderson, it can be a riveting read. It does not, however, invalidate the accepted story of the Shepard murder.
January 30, 2014
I'm not sure there's many people my age or older who are not familiar with the Matthew Shepard case. Shepard was a gay teenager that was brutally murdered in Wyoming about 15 years ago in a case that garnered national attention and ushered in a number of civil rights and hate crime legislation nationally.
Stephen Jimenez is a journalist who has done significant research on the story, and has come to the conclusion that what we know about the Shepard case is almost uniformly wrong.
The book is nearly 300 pages of investigative journalism exploring the police reports surrounding the incident, interviews with key witnesses, townspeople, and even the perpetrators themselves, to come up with an understanding of the night of Shepard's murder and the contexts surrounding it. As noted a few times in the book, a situation that has resulted in so much change deserves a look, and the idea that we should not be afraid to confront the myths that come about from these stories.
The book is a necessary one, because it really works hard to dispel a lot of the stories that go along with this specific case. The major flaw of the book, however, is the need to trust Jimenez's research on our own, as there is no list of references or transcripts or even copies of official reports along with the publication. In an era where it is more important than ever to check on sources, the lack of available references or citations is a gap in an otherwise meticulous work. The other flaw is that it really does read like a newspaper article, thus the readability leaves a little to be desired, but it's not dry and moves along fairly well, so that flaw is a small one.
This is a book everyone interested in the case should read, if only as a case study in how stories get twisted, how the media chooses to frame narratives, and how special interests can hijack the national conversation. It may also be a lesson in journalism, depending on how this pans out in the long term.
Stephen Jimenez is a journalist who has done significant research on the story, and has come to the conclusion that what we know about the Shepard case is almost uniformly wrong.
The book is nearly 300 pages of investigative journalism exploring the police reports surrounding the incident, interviews with key witnesses, townspeople, and even the perpetrators themselves, to come up with an understanding of the night of Shepard's murder and the contexts surrounding it. As noted a few times in the book, a situation that has resulted in so much change deserves a look, and the idea that we should not be afraid to confront the myths that come about from these stories.
The book is a necessary one, because it really works hard to dispel a lot of the stories that go along with this specific case. The major flaw of the book, however, is the need to trust Jimenez's research on our own, as there is no list of references or transcripts or even copies of official reports along with the publication. In an era where it is more important than ever to check on sources, the lack of available references or citations is a gap in an otherwise meticulous work. The other flaw is that it really does read like a newspaper article, thus the readability leaves a little to be desired, but it's not dry and moves along fairly well, so that flaw is a small one.
This is a book everyone interested in the case should read, if only as a case study in how stories get twisted, how the media chooses to frame narratives, and how special interests can hijack the national conversation. It may also be a lesson in journalism, depending on how this pans out in the long term.
September 17, 2019
I don't know where to start to write a review of this book. This book was riveting, shocking, and made me understand the lengths activists and politicians will go to further their agenda. The author is to be highly commended for his exhaustive research. A gay reporter researching a highly-charged beating that the media (and those involved) claimed was a hate crime.
I was shocked and angry all through this book. Shocked that all the research Mr Jimenez did couldn't have been done by other major news organizations. And angry that activist groups and the Clinton administration hopped on the hate crime bandwagon so easily.
What the public has been led to believe is that cute, lovable, adorable Matthew Shepard was beaten and left for dead simply because he made a pass at a homophobic, redneck stranger.
What I came away with was that Matthew Shepard was nothing more than a meth-dealing, meth-using, HIV-infected gay man that may have gotten too caught up in rival drug distribution groups in the Denver/Ft Collins/Laramie area. He knew his killer (he had partied and had sex with him numerous times) and was the victim of a meth-induced rage beating in an attempt to steal thousands of dollars worth of meth that he was distributing from Denver to Laramie. The person I really feel for is the killer's accomplice, Russel Henderson.
Anyone who thinks they know the Matthew Shepard story needs to read this book.
I was shocked and angry all through this book. Shocked that all the research Mr Jimenez did couldn't have been done by other major news organizations. And angry that activist groups and the Clinton administration hopped on the hate crime bandwagon so easily.
What the public has been led to believe is that cute, lovable, adorable Matthew Shepard was beaten and left for dead simply because he made a pass at a homophobic, redneck stranger.
What I came away with was that Matthew Shepard was nothing more than a meth-dealing, meth-using, HIV-infected gay man that may have gotten too caught up in rival drug distribution groups in the Denver/Ft Collins/Laramie area. He knew his killer (he had partied and had sex with him numerous times) and was the victim of a meth-induced rage beating in an attempt to steal thousands of dollars worth of meth that he was distributing from Denver to Laramie. The person I really feel for is the killer's accomplice, Russel Henderson.
Anyone who thinks they know the Matthew Shepard story needs to read this book.
March 13, 2014
This was a remarkable book that will stay with me for a long time. Although I am not someone who believes 100% of what I hear in the media, I will say that overall I believe the generalities of what is stated. However, in this case, I now strongly believe that what we were lead to believe about this highly reported case was in fact not true. Not just a 'partial truth', but basically entirely not true. It was written with candor, intellectualism, honesty and scads and scads of intensive research and interviewing those involved. I am in fact embarassed after reading it that I fully played into what we were told about the case, so much so that when I was recently in Laramie, it was all I could think about, and couldn't see beyond what I had been told about this town to see the truth. A must read.
October 9, 2020
The Book of Matt - Stephen Jimenez
Non-Fiction
4★
From the Book Description
”There were two enormous tragedies that stemmed from this case. The first obvious tragedy is that a young man lost his life. Regardless of the criminal activity that Matthew Shepard was involved in, no human being deserves to be treated in the same fashion that he was. The second tragedy was how pathetic and how poorly the media handled this case. It has been painfully obvious to me for many years now that the media had absolutely no interest in learning or reporting the facts of this case. The media simply wanted to sensationalize this homicide as a hate crime instead of reporting it for what it really was about: DRUGS.” — Former Laramie Detective Ben Fritzen, a lead investigator on the Matthew Shepard murder
I have read several books and seen 2 movies documenting the tragic, grotesque, and senseless death of this young man. To date everyone still has an opinion but no one has an explanation …the complete truth, nor can they really answer the question of “why”? Why did it happen? Why this particular man?… and what... if any... were the events leading up to it? Drugs were, and still are, thought to be the reality, but the media and almost everyone else was convinced that it was simply because Matthew was gay and dared to say it.
From the Book “Fifteen years ago Aaron McKinney swung his .357 Magnum for the final time like a baseball bat into the skull of Matthew Shepard. Shepard was tied low to a post, arms behind his back, in a prairie fringe of Laramie, Wyoming. The murder was so vicious, the aftermath so sensational, that the story first told to explain it became gospel before anyone could measure it against reality. That story was born, in part, of shock and grief and the fact that gay men…this one really only a boy… like Shepard have been violently preyed upon by heterosexuals. It was also born of straight culture and secrets. This is not a left-wing or a right-wing thing. It is not a gay or straight thing…, it is not a religious versus atheist thing…It’s being a human being thing. . .
It’s now been 22 years since this happened and we have to wonder just how much has attitudes changed? No matter what your feelings are about homosexuality…you have to see that this goes way beyond the realms of sex and who you can or can not love…it more than likely had nothing what-so-ever to do with Matthews sexual orientation and more to do with the attitude that “you are different than me and don’t believe in the same things I do so therefore you are not only totally wrong…you have to… actually really need to… die for it.”
The last line of the book reads …“What is clear is that Matthew was as complicated and flawed an individual as we all are and that in no way invalidates his humanity, his right to life or the reaction to his murder.” As I finished the last page I thought to myself…I hope that this sad testimony to intolerance is not what we have become as a people. I do sincerely hope not.
Non-Fiction
4★
From the Book Description
”There were two enormous tragedies that stemmed from this case. The first obvious tragedy is that a young man lost his life. Regardless of the criminal activity that Matthew Shepard was involved in, no human being deserves to be treated in the same fashion that he was. The second tragedy was how pathetic and how poorly the media handled this case. It has been painfully obvious to me for many years now that the media had absolutely no interest in learning or reporting the facts of this case. The media simply wanted to sensationalize this homicide as a hate crime instead of reporting it for what it really was about: DRUGS.” — Former Laramie Detective Ben Fritzen, a lead investigator on the Matthew Shepard murder
I have read several books and seen 2 movies documenting the tragic, grotesque, and senseless death of this young man. To date everyone still has an opinion but no one has an explanation …the complete truth, nor can they really answer the question of “why”? Why did it happen? Why this particular man?… and what... if any... were the events leading up to it? Drugs were, and still are, thought to be the reality, but the media and almost everyone else was convinced that it was simply because Matthew was gay and dared to say it.
From the Book “Fifteen years ago Aaron McKinney swung his .357 Magnum for the final time like a baseball bat into the skull of Matthew Shepard. Shepard was tied low to a post, arms behind his back, in a prairie fringe of Laramie, Wyoming. The murder was so vicious, the aftermath so sensational, that the story first told to explain it became gospel before anyone could measure it against reality. That story was born, in part, of shock and grief and the fact that gay men…this one really only a boy… like Shepard have been violently preyed upon by heterosexuals. It was also born of straight culture and secrets. This is not a left-wing or a right-wing thing. It is not a gay or straight thing…, it is not a religious versus atheist thing…It’s being a human being thing. . .
It’s now been 22 years since this happened and we have to wonder just how much has attitudes changed? No matter what your feelings are about homosexuality…you have to see that this goes way beyond the realms of sex and who you can or can not love…it more than likely had nothing what-so-ever to do with Matthews sexual orientation and more to do with the attitude that “you are different than me and don’t believe in the same things I do so therefore you are not only totally wrong…you have to… actually really need to… die for it.”
The last line of the book reads …“What is clear is that Matthew was as complicated and flawed an individual as we all are and that in no way invalidates his humanity, his right to life or the reaction to his murder.” As I finished the last page I thought to myself…I hope that this sad testimony to intolerance is not what we have become as a people. I do sincerely hope not.
November 16, 2013
The author wrote graciously, investigated rigorously, and had a compelling though lengthy argument. So the sad part of the book is the conclusion that politics once again overran true truth, real hatred is so shielded in the press that is poses as righteousness, and that one of the two men sits in jail for life because of these political and “free” press agendas. I am glad the author Stephen Jimenez had the courage to stick to the facts and follow the leads. Maybe he can shine a light where our current media impedes justice.
July 16, 2016
While the information is fascinating, I was struggling with the author a lot. He is unrelenting in pointing out the improper grammar of those he interviews. Most people are going to pick up on the fact that it isn't the author's fault when they see poor grammar in quotation marks-- Let it go. I've read quite a few reviews on here and agree with most of what's been said....it comes off as more of a conspiracy story than something with hard, proven facts.
January 18, 2014
This book is an important book about an event that is seminal in the gay community. The author does not belittle the violence of the death of Matthew Shepard. He simply disagrees with the motives behind the murder and the events leading up to the murder of Matt. The truth isn't what we always want to hear, but I think that this author does a good job revealing what really happened in Wyoming.
October 26, 2014
Courageous and exhaustive investigation in to the circumstances behind the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard. Meticulously researched and well-written
November 5, 2014
Having lived in Laramie for the past three years, I was eager to read this book after hearing the buzz it caused with it's re-telling of the Matthew Shepard story. Everybody knows this story, right? Stephen Jimenez expects you to believe that the version we know actually holds little truth. He will try to convince you that Matthew Shepard was actually a meth user and dealer, who was beaten to death by a bisexual man who had been awake for days on a meth binge, and who believed that Shepard had access to a $10,000 shipment of meth that was supposed to have arrived the day of his murder.
Some of Jimenez' speculations are hard to believe (and his own precociousness interferes with the telling at times), but by the end of the book you will be convinced that a million wrong and unreported things came together all at once the moment Matthew Shepard climbed into a pickup with Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson: not two homophobic cowboys who had just met him and tricked him into believing they were gay so they could attack him, but two fellow meth addicts (Aaron known to be a closeted bisexual) whom Shepard already knew, and who intended to rob him before Aaron McKinney's strung out rage set in.
If Jimenez weren't openly gay himself, he could never have approached this re-telling with any credibility. I give him lots of respect for pursuing the truth of the case, regardless of the agendas he or anyone else has. The events before and after the murder that are narrated in this book make you face the question: do people really want to know the truth about this story?
"If you're going to base a civil rights movement on one particular incident, and the mythology about a particular incident, you're asking for trouble because events are more complicated than most politicians or most activists want them to be... No one should be afraid of the truth. Least of all gay people. Shouldn't we understand better why and how?" -Andrew Sullivan
In the end, this is a troubling but important book- particularly because many of the characters involved still live here in Laramie. When you stand along the road in the prairie where Shepard was beaten and abandoned at the eastern edge of town, you would never believe anything could happen there that the whole world would care about. But then again, the story didn't grow into something entirely different on its own, and that strange chain of mutations is what this book is really about.
Some of Jimenez' speculations are hard to believe (and his own precociousness interferes with the telling at times), but by the end of the book you will be convinced that a million wrong and unreported things came together all at once the moment Matthew Shepard climbed into a pickup with Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson: not two homophobic cowboys who had just met him and tricked him into believing they were gay so they could attack him, but two fellow meth addicts (Aaron known to be a closeted bisexual) whom Shepard already knew, and who intended to rob him before Aaron McKinney's strung out rage set in.
If Jimenez weren't openly gay himself, he could never have approached this re-telling with any credibility. I give him lots of respect for pursuing the truth of the case, regardless of the agendas he or anyone else has. The events before and after the murder that are narrated in this book make you face the question: do people really want to know the truth about this story?
"If you're going to base a civil rights movement on one particular incident, and the mythology about a particular incident, you're asking for trouble because events are more complicated than most politicians or most activists want them to be... No one should be afraid of the truth. Least of all gay people. Shouldn't we understand better why and how?" -Andrew Sullivan
In the end, this is a troubling but important book- particularly because many of the characters involved still live here in Laramie. When you stand along the road in the prairie where Shepard was beaten and abandoned at the eastern edge of town, you would never believe anything could happen there that the whole world would care about. But then again, the story didn't grow into something entirely different on its own, and that strange chain of mutations is what this book is really about.
October 6, 2013
i got this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review.
this was a great book. I heard very little of this book in the 90's only because i was like 11 or 12.
this book is about Matthew shepherds murder. it was a horrible hate crime. Matthew was gay. He was at a gay bar when a couple of guys came in and also left with him. They beat him so badly and nailed him to a cross for the rest of the town to see the message.
one gay reporter decided what happened wasn't enough. he was going to back to the town ten years later and look into it further. what you will find out will shock and amaze you. you will find out this town has town of secrets. not just about this murder about a couple more that will reveal itself as this man continues his research.
you will find out that their was covering up for this murder. the police officers where involved, the state, the mob, you think of it people just keep naming more people. the reason why no one spoke up is because people's lives where getting threatened. not just one, their whole family was getting death threats. including the reporter who decided to come back to the town and ask a bunch of questions.
he will go into detail about a night he went to a bar, and someone approached him, and he felt just like Matt.
i would not read this book if you have a weak heart. because this book is the shocking truth, and i am glad this this man finally got the justice that he needed.
this was a great book. I heard very little of this book in the 90's only because i was like 11 or 12.
this book is about Matthew shepherds murder. it was a horrible hate crime. Matthew was gay. He was at a gay bar when a couple of guys came in and also left with him. They beat him so badly and nailed him to a cross for the rest of the town to see the message.
one gay reporter decided what happened wasn't enough. he was going to back to the town ten years later and look into it further. what you will find out will shock and amaze you. you will find out this town has town of secrets. not just about this murder about a couple more that will reveal itself as this man continues his research.
you will find out that their was covering up for this murder. the police officers where involved, the state, the mob, you think of it people just keep naming more people. the reason why no one spoke up is because people's lives where getting threatened. not just one, their whole family was getting death threats. including the reporter who decided to come back to the town and ask a bunch of questions.
he will go into detail about a night he went to a bar, and someone approached him, and he felt just like Matt.
i would not read this book if you have a weak heart. because this book is the shocking truth, and i am glad this this man finally got the justice that he needed.
February 15, 2014
Was Matthew Shepard murdered as the target of an anti-gay hate crime, or rather, was he murdered over drugs, drug money and drug debts?
Stephen Jimenez paints a compelling case that the latter is true, along with the fact that Shepard's primary assailant was bisexual himself, had known Shepard for some time in advance of the murder, and may even have had sexual relations a couple of few times with Shepard.
Further undercutting the gauzy film of Shepard as poster child for gay rights, and even more for hate crimes legislation? Shepard (and that primary assailant, Aaron McKinney) were not only both meth users, but dealers. And, Shepard, at least, and possibly McKinney, was at least one stage above the bottom level of meth dealers; instead, he apparently made regular pickup runs to Denver every few weeks.
It's no wonder that gay rights groups have been so quick to condemn this book, and that, in the manner of Liberty Valance, ready to continue printing the legend, just as they wrote the sentencing statements at Russell Henderson's post-plea sentencing for Shepard's parents.
That said, there is a "poster child" here. Actually, several.
Shepard may be a bad poster child for gay rights, and a worse one for hate crimes, but he, McKinney and Henderson all three are tragically great poster children for the reality of child sexual abuse. I only wish that Jimenez had devoted an extra few chapters at the end of his book to discuss this even more.
Stephen Jimenez paints a compelling case that the latter is true, along with the fact that Shepard's primary assailant was bisexual himself, had known Shepard for some time in advance of the murder, and may even have had sexual relations a couple of few times with Shepard.
Further undercutting the gauzy film of Shepard as poster child for gay rights, and even more for hate crimes legislation? Shepard (and that primary assailant, Aaron McKinney) were not only both meth users, but dealers. And, Shepard, at least, and possibly McKinney, was at least one stage above the bottom level of meth dealers; instead, he apparently made regular pickup runs to Denver every few weeks.
It's no wonder that gay rights groups have been so quick to condemn this book, and that, in the manner of Liberty Valance, ready to continue printing the legend, just as they wrote the sentencing statements at Russell Henderson's post-plea sentencing for Shepard's parents.
That said, there is a "poster child" here. Actually, several.
Shepard may be a bad poster child for gay rights, and a worse one for hate crimes, but he, McKinney and Henderson all three are tragically great poster children for the reality of child sexual abuse. I only wish that Jimenez had devoted an extra few chapters at the end of his book to discuss this even more.
September 1, 2016
When I started reading this book, I almost gave it a 1 star review. I was really skeptical it would never make it past the early "anonymous letter" phase; it seemed like scandalous gossip at first, with no real sources to back it up.
But when some of the sources found by Jimenez, especially good friends of Matthew's, finally allowed their full names to be used, I found in my own online search that much of what they had to say, at one time, HAD a life on the internet, but then any proof of their words had been scrubbed in an attempt to preserve the media myth of Saint Matthew, well the rose-colored glasses finally came off. I got to see Jimenez's work for what it is; an incredibly brave, and very thorough search into the real facts of this case.
I also had too much faith in the Laramie investigators, but then I caught them in a lie on the NPR website, which was hard to do because the court case against Aaron McKinney has been completely removed from the internet. What I found was an accounting of the case instead, which revealed the investigators who negate this book to be liars.
So Jimenez has a believer in me. From a 1 star to 5 stars; this work is completely solid. It is the media & internet that keep distributing all the misinfo on this case, parroting the 2 Laramie investigators who seem to have a stake in keeping the truth hidden.
But when some of the sources found by Jimenez, especially good friends of Matthew's, finally allowed their full names to be used, I found in my own online search that much of what they had to say, at one time, HAD a life on the internet, but then any proof of their words had been scrubbed in an attempt to preserve the media myth of Saint Matthew, well the rose-colored glasses finally came off. I got to see Jimenez's work for what it is; an incredibly brave, and very thorough search into the real facts of this case.
I also had too much faith in the Laramie investigators, but then I caught them in a lie on the NPR website, which was hard to do because the court case against Aaron McKinney has been completely removed from the internet. What I found was an accounting of the case instead, which revealed the investigators who negate this book to be liars.
So Jimenez has a believer in me. From a 1 star to 5 stars; this work is completely solid. It is the media & internet that keep distributing all the misinfo on this case, parroting the 2 Laramie investigators who seem to have a stake in keeping the truth hidden.
May 3, 2014
I won this book in a giveaway.
It took me quit a while to read. And after reading and looking through some other reviews (one particular bad one). I have to say to me, this book was one HELL of a read, I found it interesting when the murder of this poor kid happened I was merely 3 years old. SO it was obviously quit new to me.
Going off that THIS is based on actual 'facts' the author got, I personally feel horribly bad that Russel sort of got screwed (he deserves prison but not the same sentence the actual murderer got)
Long story short. The book was really a great read, the book itself at some point (I don't remember at which point) did have a word that was sort of jumbled up with another word.
But Stephen Jimenez did a GREAT job.
It took me quit a while to read. And after reading and looking through some other reviews (one particular bad one). I have to say to me, this book was one HELL of a read, I found it interesting when the murder of this poor kid happened I was merely 3 years old. SO it was obviously quit new to me.
Going off that THIS is based on actual 'facts' the author got, I personally feel horribly bad that Russel sort of got screwed (he deserves prison but not the same sentence the actual murderer got)
Long story short. The book was really a great read, the book itself at some point (I don't remember at which point) did have a word that was sort of jumbled up with another word.
But Stephen Jimenez did a GREAT job.
February 2, 2014
As someone who closely followed and was outraged by the case in 1998, I was surprised to learn that I didn't really know anything about it at all. Thus I found myself completely sucked into this book and couldn't put it down. I recommend this book to anyone interested in learning more about the "other factors" involved. It's an eye-opening read, for sure!
January 4, 2016
This book in no way down plays the horrible death of Matthew Shepard, it does bring to light new perspectives on the whole case.
The facts of the case were not fully explored at the time and the bravery of Mr. Jimenez to shine a light on those errors is commendable. A very interesting and thoroughly researched book.
The facts of the case were not fully explored at the time and the bravery of Mr. Jimenez to shine a light on those errors is commendable. A very interesting and thoroughly researched book.
October 22, 2013
Had to read.....makes you wonder.......
Displaying 1 - 30 of 169 reviews