Breitbart is highlighting a book of an award-winning investigative journalist that turns the narrative surrounding the tragic death of a gay Wyoming man, whose murder gave the impetus for hate-crime legislation, on its head.
The Book of Matt by Stephen Jimenez will be published this week and is already causing consternation among gay activists because it turns a homophobic hate crime into a spat between two meth-addled gay lovers.
The story that we are most familiar with is that Shepard met a couple of men in a bar who offered him a ride home. They instead took him to a remote area, robbed and brutally beat him with pistols, and left him to die.
The two men charged with the crime were convicted and sentenced to life in prison. The gay community latched on to the story as an example of America’s extreme homophobia and used the memory of the young man to advance the gay agenda, including hate-crime legislation.
But is that all there is to the story?
As gay journalist Aaron Hicklin, writing in The Advocate asks, “How do people sold on one version of history react to being told that the facts are slippery — that thinking of Shepard’s murder as a hate crime does not mean it was a hate crime? And how does it color our understanding of such a crime if the perpetrator and victim not only knew each other but also had sex together, bought drugs from one another, and partied together?”
This startling revelation comes in The Book of Matt to be published next week by investigative journalist Stephen Jiminez, who over the course of years interviewed over 100 people including Shepard’s friends, friends of the killers, and the killers themselves.
According to The Advocate, one of the premier gay publications in the country, Jiminez “amassed enough anecdotal evidence to build a persuasive case that Shepard’s sexuality was, if not incidental, certain less central than popular consensus had lead us to believe.”
Even before Shepard died, two of his friends were peddling the narrative that he died at the hands of vicious homophobes. Within days the gay establishment latched onto what would drive the hate crimes story for years to come; even now, the Laramie Project, a stage play about the killing is performed all over the country. Indeed, it will be performed next week at Ford’s Theater in Washington DC.
But what really happened to Matthew Shepard?
He was beaten, tortured, and killed by one or both of the men now serving life sentences. But it turns out, according to Jiminez, that Shepard was a meth dealer himself and he was friends and sex partners with the man who led in his killing. Indeed, his killer may have killed him because Shepard allegedly came into possession of a large amount of methamphetamine and refused to give it up.
The book also shows that Shepard’s killer was on a five-day meth binge at the time of the killing.
As to be expected, Matthew Shepard Inc. is rallying to denounce the new narrative that his homosexuality had little or nothing to do with his murder.
Whom are we to believe? That Aaron Hicklin of The Advocate is taking the book seriously (if not agreeing entirely with its conclusions) should tell us that Jimenez has, at the very least, raised very troubling questions about the manipulation of the media, the political process, and the American people by the gay lobby. The reaction to the book also shows how desperately the gay lobby feels about saving the narrative — a source of power and money for them.
The Matthew Shepard Foundation released this statement:
Attempts now to rewrite the story of this hate crime appear to be based on untrustworthy sources, factual errors, rumors and innuendo rather than the actual evidence gathered by law enforcement and presented in a court of law. We do not respond to innuendo, rumor or conspiracy theories. Instead we recommit ourselves to honoring Matthew’s memory, and refuse to be intimidated by those who seek to tarnish it. We owe that to the tens of thousands of donors, activists, volunteers, and allies to the cause of equality who have made our work possible.









In a sane world this would be known as lying, but today it is called "social justice."
"I don’t know if Jimenez has found the truth. But I know that he should be taken seriously and further investigation should be undertaken to correct any historical inaccuracies that are being pushed by the gay lobby".
Really? You publish this citing the author but cap it off with 'I don't know if it's true' (then why does it read as fact) and implore us to 'take him seriously' (on what grounds?) then end the article there. I'm sure none of your readers were able to pick up on that.
This dreck is just so much more red meat thrown out to your narrow minded myopic readers to foment further hate towards anything that's not like themselves. Obviously you don't realize that when you throw out innuendos play loose with facts and present untruths, the troglodytes here now have it their little minds as hard fact and true gospel. No I take that back. Just like the rest of your kind you know exactly what you're doing. They need to have someone think for them and you seem only to willing to do so.
Just another sordid case of elements of the left lying and demonizing to advance their agenda. Trayvon Martin, anyone?
Every “landmark” event of their Heroic Struggle is a carefully orchestrated plot…
The Scopes Monkey Trial?
Fraud. They hired a substitute teacher to SPECIFICALLY say something to a class that was never “his”, because they KNEW it would get him “fired” and provide grounds for the Suit they WANTED, but didn’t have an actual legitimate CASE to pursue.
Rosa Parks?
Same thing. A planned event, discussed in advance, and the most ‘sympathetic” participant chosen to carry it out. She wasn’t just some poor woman ” too tired” to get up and move from her seat, she got on that bus SPECIFICALLY to challenge that law…Honorable endeavor? Yes. An “organic, spontaneous” event? No, but they PRETEND it was, because it’s a better “sell”
Roe vs Wade?
Sure, theoretically, IF a woman was raped, and IF she needed an abortion…but the “plaintiff” in that case was neither…they lied, fabricated the circumstances to “fit” a particular “theoretical” line to best win a Supreme Court Challenge. Poor woman raped, and forced to carry her attackers baby to term? No, but it makes a good “theory” doesn’t it? The fact that the actual Female Plaintiff in Roe vs Wade became so soured by the Rabidly Pro-Abortion Advocates who used and discarded her for Political Purposes eventually became a pro-life supporter, is somehow never mentioned in “The Narrative”
Trayvon Martin
Still too raw to go fully into. Suffice to say the Leftist/Media Narrative reached new heights on that one…doctoring pictures and 911 calls while suppressing all evidence of the little thugs clear and prevalent thuggish nature...utterly frightening how an “Official Narrative” can be so strongly “enforced” in the face of so much obvious counter-evidence….
And NOW we hear of the real dirty truth behind “the perfect story” of a Gay Boy killed “just for being gay”
Let the past be your guide to the future regarding anything the Lefties say. Anytime their Poster Child, their Martyr, their “perfect” argument is just Too Good, Too Righteous, Too Emotional to be denied, it generally IS.
And what you REALLY have is a pre-packaged affair, carefully worked out (sometimes years in advance) waiting for the “perfect moment” to be inserted into, or wrapped around, the “Perfect Story” they’ve been hoping for, to advance their agenda.
Fraud.
And he wasn't even teaching "evolution," but, rather, was teaching eugenics from a text defending that practice from an "evolutionary" standpoint.
Let's be candid here. The media didn't need much manipulation because they've been in the tank for gays since Stonewall. Some years ago complaints about NYT editorial coverage of gay rights issues prompted the then Ombudsman to examine the evidence and declare the NYT coverage not to be reporting but advocacy, "cheerleading" he called it. If the revelations in the book are true, it's time for the gay community to do some soul-searching like it was forced to do when the late Randy Shilts took a very responsible and tough position on the complicity of the SF gay community in turning AIDs into a raging epidemic because of their devotion to unsafe, random, anonymous encounters in bath houses.
Given the nature and circumstances (a fist-fight robbery between two men of the same race/physicality vs a purly racist attack by a young man on an old woman) a Judge would adjudicate the "assault" portion of the crime at a higher level...there are some circumstances that cry for "the book" to be thrown at a defendent...
Like, setting your neighbors leaf pile on fire because it annoys you, vs Burning a Cross in their front yard...Both may be "arson", but one deserves a stiffer penalty
(hint: thats why most criminal statutes have a RANGE of penalty?)
We already have all the laws we need, we just dont enforce them properly.
And thats by DESIGN, so the Lefties (that control the Judiciary theses days) can "create the need" for more Thought Control.
G-d, I miss Andrew Breitbart; Stephen Jimenez is proving himself fearless by doing this. Let us support him in every way.