This simply is not a credible piece of journalism. This piece says much, much more about 20/20 than it does about the murder of Matthew Shepard.. - GLADD Executive Director Joan M. Garry

20/20 does not put forward a single piece of incontrovertible evidence to back its assertion that drugs were the central cause of Matthew Shepard’s murder. Its case is based on conjecture, sensational repetition of unsubstantiated claims, and sources whose credibility is highly dubious at best.

The show relies on interviews with sources seriously lacking in credibility, including but not limited to: Doc O’Connor, Kristen Price, Elaine Baker and Aaron McKinney -- all of whom offer stories that are contradicted by others and/or by the public record. In Price’s case, her newly invented story suggests she may have committed perjury as well. It is doubtful that any credible news organization would use such sources as the foundation of a story.

20/20 ignores critical facts to advance its claim that anti-gay bias played no role in Shepard’s murder. The show fails to examine McKinney’s confession to sheriffs’ investigators, which was one of the key sources of information about the anti-gay bias element in the case. 20/20 also fails to acknowledge that the drug angle it presents as news received wide coverage in 1999 as part of McKinney’s defense strategy and as part of a “Harper’s” magazine story that explored many of the exact same themes.

On Nov. 9, GLAAD received a press release from 20/20 promoting the sweeps-month show. GLAAD’s Garry then reached out to 20/20 Executive Producer David Sloan, raised serious concerns about the sensationalistic tone of the release, and requested a preview copy of the show -- a request Sloan declined. GLAAD subsequently secured a press screening copy from a source outside ABC.

“This was indeed a complex murder; no one is suggesting otherwise,” Garry concluded. “But for 20/20 to lay out a case based on speculation, innuendo, the avoidance of critical facts, sources lacking in basic credibility, and reliance on conflicting pieces of information is reckless journalism.” (source)

That pretty much sums up my opinion of the 20/20 piece that aired last Friday night. On the 20/20 program, Elizabeth Vargas takes the position that the description of this murder as an anti-gay hate crime is entirely wrong. She is on very thin ice here. During the 60 minute program, McKinney’s girl friend, McKinney himself, along with Russell Henderson all said that the story they told the court that Matthew had made a pass at McKinney was a lie. The story was that that alleged pass infuriated McKinney who was driven into an anti-gay panic/rage and that is why he killed Matthew Shepard. They lied because, as McKinney’s girlfriend said, they thought they would get a lighter sentence if they played the “gay panic” defense card. It back fired on them. The prosecutor would have no part of it and neither did law enforcement.

Also, during the same program, for everything McKinney said, along with his girlfriend, they were caught in lies, right on the same program. So, why are we suppose to believe anything they said?

Lie # 1: McKinney said he didn’t know Matthew Shepard and didn’t even know he was gay. This was immediately refuted by at least three people who had seen him and Matthew together, when Matthew was allegedly buying drugs from Aaron McKinney.

Lie # 2: McKinney said that he had no hatred of homosexuals and had never done anything homosexual in his life. They then interviewed the owner of the limo service in Laramie, who told Vargas that was just not true. He knew for a fact that McKinney had been with another man. Vargas asked how he got that information. The man said, “I’m the man who was with him.” Enough said.

This is all very interesting, but it really isn’t what offended me so much about the piece.

According to a drug buddy interviewed by Vargas, McKinney had been on a week long no-sleeping bender before he murdered Shepard. Henderson says on camera that he was so worried about McKinney’s drug-induced volatility that night that he hoped to keep him drinking in a local bar until he calmed down. (source)

Basically, 20/20 would have us believe that the killing of Matthew Shepard was not a hate crime at all, but was a simple robbery. Aaron McKinney robbed Matthew Shepard because he looked like he had money, Aaron had been on a drug binge for awhile, and was now coming off the drugs. He disparately needed money for more drugs and the easiest was to get that money was to rob someone.

That I can buy. What I have a real problem with is the extreme savage way that Matthew was murdered. If you are so disparate for money, you rob your victim and do the one thing that is first and foremost on your mind: to take that money and go to where you can buy more drugs to satisfy your need. That is not what Aaron did. He robbed Matthew of $30, all that Matthew had on him at the time. Matthew told them, after receiving several blows from the butt of the gun Aaron had with him, that he (Matthew) had more money at his place and if they would only drive him there, he would get it for them.

This should have been something Aaron would have readily agreed to, if robbery were the motive. Instead, Aaron took the time to drive 10 miles to the outskirts of Laramie where Aaron savagely beat Matthew to death. Does this sound like a robbery to you?

Aaron McKinney got exactly what he deserved - two life sentences to be served consecutively.

Russell Henderson received the the same exact sentence, even though he said he never placed a hand on Matthew, unless you count when he tied Matthew’s hands behind his back and onto the fence. Did Russell deserve the same fate as Aaron McKinney? Well, you decide. In Russell’s own words, he said that he was there. He could have stopped the beating of Matthew, and he didn’t. He did nothing to stop it.

I’m especially angry and disappointed in Vargas and the 20/20 program. Matthew Shepard deserves better than a character assassination, six years after his death. And that is, in the end, all this program was about. And for the record, both McKinney and Henderson were not prosecuted on a hate crime. Wyoming has no such statute on it’s books for such a prosecution - something that came out during the trial. So, the point of whether this was a hate crime or not is mute as it was never a factor. More time was not added to the sentencing because of it.

Elizabeth Vargas should stick with what she apparently is best at, that of being a tabloid news reporter. She will do better at that. She, along with 20/20 have lost my respect. I will never watch either of them again.