On ABC's Matthew Shepard Revisionism
---
I was not able to watch ABC's "20/20" piece on Matthew Shepard's murder the night after Thanksgiving. The transcript, however, is available here. The report seems to be getting scant attention, perhaps because of the holiday date it aired.
I don't fisk, but here are some hasty-stitches based on ABC's website and some blogospheric reactions:
--Every single person now attempting to paint a new picture regarding what happened that night is irreparably biased in favor of the murderers. This includes the girlfriend of one the murderers and a limousine company owner and driver who used and dealt drugs with him. Meanwhile, every (presumably unbiased) law enforcement official and prosecutor maintains not only that the evidence overwhelmingly points to a bias-related killing, but also that the murderers' new version of the events is untenable.
--Matthew Shepard's mother, after initially agreeing to cooperate with ABC, is now insisting that the final piece was heavily and deceptively edited to misrepresent her.
--Although the legalities appear to be complicated, one of the murderers clearly agreed, as part of his plea bargain, never to speak to the media. He broke that promise.
--Oh, and by the way, they both confessed to the murder -- with one clearly acknowledging that the murder was a hate crime.
--The murderers now claim that they took Shepard to a remote location to "strand" him to buy time, not to kill him. Yet they tied him to a snow-covered fence, clearly endangering his life. Does that make sense? If it was drug-induced rage, then why was Shepard repeatedly kicked in the crotch?
--If any part of the murderers' new version of that night were true, then they should definitely get new trials...based on ineffective counsel! You don't need to be a criminal defense attorney to figure out that "drug-induced mania" is a far better strategy than "gay panic defense." It might even have made the difference between murder and manslaughter. The subject of "a drug deal gone bad" never came up at trial. Assuming even a barely competent attorney, that can only mean it never happened.
No part of history should ever be allowed to become immutable dogma, not even the history of Matthew Shepard's murder. Still, revision of history should be based on demonstrable facts, credible eyewitness accounts, and reasonable inferences. All were sorely lacking, indeed totally absent, from the ABC piece.
Matthew Sheperd's murderers have now told multiple versions of their story multiple times. Matthew, on the other hand, never got to tell his story even once. He and his loved ones got justice in the criminal court. Will they now be denied justice in the court of sensationalist journalism?
Meanwhile, those seeking a true fisking of the 20/20 segment will find one here.
I don't fisk, but here are some hasty-stitches based on ABC's website and some blogospheric reactions:
--Every single person now attempting to paint a new picture regarding what happened that night is irreparably biased in favor of the murderers. This includes the girlfriend of one the murderers and a limousine company owner and driver who used and dealt drugs with him. Meanwhile, every (presumably unbiased) law enforcement official and prosecutor maintains not only that the evidence overwhelmingly points to a bias-related killing, but also that the murderers' new version of the events is untenable.
--Matthew Shepard's mother, after initially agreeing to cooperate with ABC, is now insisting that the final piece was heavily and deceptively edited to misrepresent her.
--Although the legalities appear to be complicated, one of the murderers clearly agreed, as part of his plea bargain, never to speak to the media. He broke that promise.
--Oh, and by the way, they both confessed to the murder -- with one clearly acknowledging that the murder was a hate crime.
--The murderers now claim that they took Shepard to a remote location to "strand" him to buy time, not to kill him. Yet they tied him to a snow-covered fence, clearly endangering his life. Does that make sense? If it was drug-induced rage, then why was Shepard repeatedly kicked in the crotch?
--If any part of the murderers' new version of that night were true, then they should definitely get new trials...based on ineffective counsel! You don't need to be a criminal defense attorney to figure out that "drug-induced mania" is a far better strategy than "gay panic defense." It might even have made the difference between murder and manslaughter. The subject of "a drug deal gone bad" never came up at trial. Assuming even a barely competent attorney, that can only mean it never happened.
No part of history should ever be allowed to become immutable dogma, not even the history of Matthew Shepard's murder. Still, revision of history should be based on demonstrable facts, credible eyewitness accounts, and reasonable inferences. All were sorely lacking, indeed totally absent, from the ABC piece.
Matthew Sheperd's murderers have now told multiple versions of their story multiple times. Matthew, on the other hand, never got to tell his story even once. He and his loved ones got justice in the criminal court. Will they now be denied justice in the court of sensationalist journalism?
Meanwhile, those seeking a true fisking of the 20/20 segment will find one here.
Posted by KipEsquire on
28 November 2004
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
