add to that list stephen jimenez, the "journalist" responsible for the 20/20 segment in 2004 that gave credence to the conspiracy theory that shepard was a drug dealer/that a drug deal gone wrong lead to his murder *and* had the audacity to publish a book in 2013 further perpetuating it. we have him largely to thank for comments like these:
These seem like the people that would bend over backwards to protect their daughter Khrystall who's runnin an oxy business on the side for accidentally burning their trailer to the ground while cooking baked beans for the child she had with her first cousin, but will act like this if it helps them feel better about how bad they failed to use their earthly time.
i didn't realize it had duped so many people until i was scrolling through social media today. i had hoped the book, which was largely discredited at the time of its release, was long forgotten along with its content.
yeah, his wiki page talks about the stuff i mentioned (20/20, the book) which i can understand. but it doesn't present it as irrefutable evidence that the hate crime narrative is false.
Jimenez is a liberal gay journalist. He wrote a book about Matthew Shepard based on years of research. It’s a more complicated story than the one presented at the time but neither homophobic nor disrespectful to what Matthew’s life meant.
If you think the above opinion is “stirring shit,” you should revisit your tolerance settings for disagreement.
that book was researched about as well as a paper generated by chatgbt using wikipedia as a source and has been called laughable by multiple members of law enforcement who were involved with the fucking case. you are a disgraceful human being.
i have read it, including the joke of a list of "sources" at its conclusion. i'm willing to bet you didn't and are happy to take his word for it as a liberal, gay "journalist." again, you are a disgrace and an embarrassment and i'm confident that no one on this website would miss you if you were gone.
Interesting that you cite law enforcement having disputed it but not his parents, friends, etc. So you're saying that he may--may--have gotten things wrong about the crime, which law enforcement know about, but not other things, that his parents and friends know about, and that also greatly complicate the narrative?
Okay.
RE: this site. We have so many of you. You are far less likely to be missed than I. God bless.
Reply
( ... )
Reply
Reply
it was just horrifying to hear it, and I hate that it's the first thing that popped into my mind when I saw this post.
Reply
i didn't realize it had duped so many people until i was scrolling through social media today. i had hoped the book, which was largely discredited at the time of its release, was long forgotten along with its content.
Reply
Reply
yeah, his wiki page talks about the stuff i mentioned (20/20, the book) which i can understand. but it doesn't present it as irrefutable evidence that the hate crime narrative is false.
Reply
Reply
Reply
If you think the above opinion is “stirring shit,” you should revisit your tolerance settings for disagreement.
Reply
if you think for a second i believe you read it, you must be new here
Reply
Great post.
Reply
that book was researched about as well as a paper generated by chatgbt using wikipedia as a source and has been called laughable by multiple members of law enforcement who were involved with the fucking case. you are a disgraceful human being.
Reply
Reply
i have read it, including the joke of a list of "sources" at its conclusion. i'm willing to bet you didn't and are happy to take his word for it as a liberal, gay "journalist." again, you are a disgrace and an embarrassment and i'm confident that no one on this website would miss you if you were gone.
Reply
Okay.
RE: this site. We have so many of you. You are far less likely to be missed than I. God bless.
Reply
Leave a comment