The Book of Matt

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.

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 interviewees 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.