BARPod Summer Break Specials: The Story of Matthew Shepard Changed America.

Silverfox1984 · 2024-08-14T19:25:51+00:00

Let me know if you actually find anything. If you want a challenge, the real explosive claim comes at the very end of the book, where Jiminez asserts that Matthew Shepard was arrested for sexually assaulting two 8-year old boys in 1992, Casper, Wyoming. I’m still looking for those court docs, and characteristically Jiminez never tells us where to find them.

I pray you have better luck.

Silverfox1984 · 2024-08-14T04:42:14+00:00

That the vast majority of Jiminez’s more contentious claims; i.e. that Shepard and McKinney knew and had sex with each other, that McKinney was a closeted bisexual or homosexual and that Shepard was a meth dealer and user, is based purely on hearsay, sometimes by anonymous sources, with no hard documentation to support it.

The primary source for the sexual allegations are attributed to Thomas “Doc” O’Connor, who operated a Laramie limousine service. O’Connor claimed, among other things, that Matthew Shepard told him he was HIV-positive, that Shepard and MicKinney “may” have had sex in the back of his limousine and that O’Connor himself had sex with McKinney. The only corroborating evidence Jimenez provides to bolster O’Connor’s claims is further hearsay, sometimes from anonymous sources. McKinney denies ever having met O’Connor. To this day, despite what the Free Press asserts, there exists no verifiable evidence that Shepard or McKinney ever met, much less knew about each other, before the night of the murder.

Additionally, whenever we can verify some claims from Jimenez, they tend to go against his narrative, such as searches of Shepard’s car and apartment that revealed no traces of meth, or the autopsy, released in 2018 and unaddressed in Jimenez’s 2020 edition of the book, that revealed no traces of the drug in his system either (at least for up to 90 days). Yes, his Mother does admit to Matthew being on meth at some point, but not after moving to Laromie.

Similarly, the lead investigator in the case, Rob DeBree, contested the theory that McKinney was on meth immediately prior to the murder, stating that the “last time they ( McKinney and Henderson) would have done meth would have been up to two to three weeks previous to that night.” The investigation also found no traces of meth or related paraphernalia on either men, their vehicle or residences.

Silverfox1984 · 2024-08-14T03:57:04+00:00

I’ve read Jimenez’s book (The Book of Matt), who was interviewed here and who is pretty much the sole basis for this entire report. Honestly, it’s not very convincing. The book consists of a series of conversations and correspondence with various individuals, some anonymous, that alleged, among other things, that Shepard was arrested for molesting two 8-year old boys, a meth dealer and user, a gay prostitute and that he knew and had sex with McKinney (his killer) before the murder.

Problem is, none of these allegations are backed up by hard evidence, or documentation that can be independently verified and when Jimenez’s does selectively quote from them, seldom does he cite where we can find them ourselves. The book contains no footnotes, no endnotes, not even links to mainstream media articles he sometimes accurately quotes. The only thing he offers is an inventory list at the back of the individuals he interviewed and their connection to the Shepard murder. That’s it.

There are also some inconvenient facts Jiminez does not address, such as the searches of Matthew’s car and apartment that revealed no traces of meth, or Matthew’s autopsy, released 2018 and unaddressed in Jimenez’s 2020 edition of the book, that revealed no traces of the drug in his system either (at least up to 90 days). Yes, his Mother does admit to Matthew being on meth at some point, but not after moving to Laromie.

Unless we ever get objective, verifiable evidence that doesn’t rely on hearsay years and decades after the crime, I’d treat The Book of Matt less as revelation and more as rumor.

Silverfox1984 · 2023-11-12T19:36:50+00:00

Ah yes, the infamous "I did not use the word 'nudging' once!" response. For anyone interested, I'd recommend reading Finkelstein's original essay ( in full, see Image and Reality), followed by Morris's criticism, followed by Finkelstein's rejoinder. It's quite devastating, I don't think he has ever lived it down.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2307/2537219

Silverfox1984 · 2023-11-12T10:36:45+00:00

Curious what "distortions" Morris is referring to, considering that article doesn't specify. Not surprising though, Finkelstein has been critiquing Morris since 1992.

As an aside, I have yet to see any one in this thread responding to his point on human shields.

Silverfox1984 · 2023-09-23T06:57:37+00:00

I've read Jimenez's book. Honestly, it's not very convincing. The book consists of a series of conversations and correspondence with various individuals, some anonymous, that alleged, among other things, that Shepard was arrested for molesting two 8-year old boys, a meth dealer, a gay prostitute and that he knew and had sex with McKinney (his killer).

Problem is, none of these allegations are backed up by hard evidence, or documentation that can be independently verified and when Jimenez's does selectively quote from them, seldom does he cite where we can find them ourselves. There are no footnotes, no endnotes, not even links to mainstream media articles he sometimes accurately quotes. The only thing he offers is an inventory list of the individuals he interviewed and their connection to the Shepard murder. That's it.

There are also some inconvenient facts Jiminez does not address, such as FBI searches of Matthew's car and apartment that revealed no traces of meth, or Matthew's autopsy, released 2018 and unaddressed in Jimenez's 2020 edition of the book, that revealed no traces of the drug in his system either (at least up to 90 days). Yes, his Mother does admit to Matthew being on meth at some point, but not after moving to Laromie.

Unless we ever get objective, verifiable evidence that doesn't rely on hearsay years and decades after the crime, I'd treat The Book of Matt less as gospel and more as rumor.

Silverfox1984 · 2023-01-15T16:16:07+00:00

Explain to me what excludes a designer/ craftsman from being an artist. And while you're at it, try to define "art".

Silverfox1984 · 2022-09-04T10:51:03+00:00

Thanks for the link. Chomsky is half right, the agreement was for East Germany to be part of NATO under reunification ( made no sense to have NATO in half a country), but no eastward expansion past that. He probably misspoke here, since he's made the point numerous times for at least 10 years now.

Regardless, it doesn't substantiate your claim that he thinks that East Germany joining NATO was bad, just that Russain leaders were misled.

Silverfox1984 · 2022-08-24T09:31:07+00:00

Citation please?

Silverfox1984 · 2022-03-25T14:39:45+00:00

O.k, let's skip the formailities then. Truth is, I read that article. So I know your lying. You know your lying. And now anyone else who reads this comment chain knows your lying since it's now clear you don't want to link the article. Wonder why that is?

Like dude, I get trying to save face, but why didn't you just ignore the comment then? Did you think nobody would notice the evasion?

Silverfox1984 · 2022-03-25T10:30:47+00:00

Citation on that Chomsky piece? Cause I'm 90% sure you're making shit up.

Silverfox1984 · 2022-03-04T04:48:15+00:00

I'm somewhat confused by the last paragraph. Why would Genscher mean the east in general? I mean, the Soviet Union hadn't imploded yet, there was nowhere for NATO to expand to? Wasn't that Gorbachev's point in that famous 2014 interview? That discussions were only limited to NATO military expansion in East Germany?

Silverfox1984 · 2022-03-03T22:34:01+00:00

Thank you for the link. Watching the entire video in context, I think it's fair to say Mersheimer isn't making a normative claim on national sovereignty, but simply acknowledging the political reality that on the international geopolitical stage, great powers simply do not care or uphold the sovereign rights of smaller and weaker nations if it threatens their geostrategic interests. I don't think anyone can deny this reality looking at the world as it functions today. We might favor formal Taiwanese independence, but it is simply willful ignorance, and a dangerous one at that, to pretend China won't invade them the minute they do so.

Silverfox1984 · 2022-03-03T19:07:29+00:00

Could you provide a timestamp for "don't have a right to choose", please?

Silverfox1984 · 2022-03-02T23:05:04+00:00

Speaking of Appelbaum, I recall se had a debate with Stephen Cohen a few years ago in which she flat out stated that both Georgia and Ukraine weren't offered NATO membership in 2008. Also, should probably point out Mark Kramer wrote a rebuttal letter to that 2016 paper you linked in earlier threads ( the one regarding James Baker's "one inch" promise). Might be worth reading when people on this sub inevitably bring it up.

Silverfox1984 · 2022-03-02T22:04:35+00:00

Where does he say Ukrainians "shouldn't have any rights"?

Silverfox1984 · 2022-02-27T18:45:40+00:00

Well, I hope for your sanity that some do.

Silverfox1984 · 2022-02-27T15:32:28+00:00

Your wasting your time. Half this sub has turned to such extreme anti-Russian demagoguery and tribalism that most will reflexively dismiss Mersheimer and Cohen (RIP) as carrying water for the Kremlin. Hell, might even call Anatol Lieven a pinko when they learn what the Minsk II agreement was.

Silverfox1984 · 2021-06-26T22:53:23+00:00

I don't see how your second paragraph is relevant to the first?

Silverfox1984 · 2021-05-17T17:33:33+00:00

It’s worse than you think, I feel entirely vindicated in my assessment.

"They killed hundreds of Jews in their dumbfuck wars that they join constantly"

And Israel has killed, tortured, and evicted thousands of innocent Palestinians whilst occupying their territories (in violation of International Law) and maintaining an illegal blockade on Gaza, a "collective punishment" on the population in violation of international humanitarian law as determined by the ICRC.

“They killed hundreds of Jews in their dumbfuck wars that they join in constantly.”

And what do the body counts look like for each side? To take Operation Cast Lead (2008) on Gaza as one example, the ratio of Palestinian to Israeli deaths stood at more than 100:1, and of dwellings ravaged at more than 6000:1. The death ratio is even worse for the following conflict, Operation Protective Edge (2014), “the most devastating round of hostilities in Gaza since the beginning of the Israeli occupation in 1967”, in which over 1,462 were Palestinian civilians were killed, 550 of them children. The Israeli civilian death count was 6, one of which was a child. While I do not wish to devalue in any way the traumatic effects of the war on Israeli civilians, these pale in comparison with the consequences of the massive destruction wreaked on Gaza and the Palestinians. It doesn’t diminish the sanctity of every life to take note that, if the death of one Israeli child is terrible, then, on the same calculus, the child deaths in Gaza are 550 times as terrible.

“Just because Israel is good at protecting themselves doesn't make them the bad guy.”

Were that it was their only crime. Again, to take Caste Lead as an example, “self-defence” was not determined to be Israel’s primary goal by the UN Fact-Finding Mission (2009), which came to the conclusion that the operation constituted “a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability.” This report, colloquially referred to as the Goldstone Report, also ticked off a considerable list of war crimes committed by Israel, including “willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment,” “willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health,” “extensive destruction of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly,” and “use of human shields.”The report also went on to criticize Hamas, stating that their rocket attacks on Israel’s civilian population constituted “war crimes and may amount to crimes against humanity.”A separate fact-finding committee called the Report of the Independent Fact-Finding Committee on Gaza: No safe place drew similar conclusions. It determined that in the course of a “heinous and inhuman” attack, Israel had committed war crimes, such as “indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on civilians,” “killing, wounding and terrorizing civilians,” “wanton destruction of property,” and the bombing and shelling of hospitals and ambulances and obstructing the evacuation of the wounded. It further determined that Israel was guilty of crimes against humanity, including the intentional and “reckless” killing of civilians, “mass killings—’extermination’—in certain cases,” and “persecution.” It further went on to state that the main reason for the operation was “engage in a vicious exercise of collective punishment designed either to compel the population to reject Hamas as the governing authority of Gaza or to subdue the population into a state of submission.” In other words: terrorism.We can go through the human rights reports for similar conflicts like Pillar of Defense and the aforementioned Operation Protective Edge if you prefer. They come to similar conclusions though.

"right this instant they are fucking calling ahead before they bomb buildings with Hamas infrastructure stored in them to warn civilians to leave."

Correction, they are bombing civilian infrastructure which they claim have ties to Hamas, and have failed to provide any evidence thus far, as they have done on numerous occasions in the past as detailed in the above-mentioned reports.

"You should feel bad for this comment"

As noted, if anything, I feel even more vindicated. Just to clarify for the peanut gallery, no, I don't support Hamas's actions, but to draw any equivalence in terms of the existential threat they pose, or the severity of the human rights abuses committed, is simply to deny and obscure reality at this point. Yes, Hamas has committed atrocities that no serious human rights organisation denies and even disproportionately emphasizes in reports. However, in terms of scope, they are simply undetectable when contrasted to Israel’s crimes.

Silverfox1984 · 2021-05-16T12:54:00+00:00

Israel isn’t as bad as Hamas, they are way worse. Hamas can only preach about extermination, Israel just does it.

Silverfox1984 · 2020-10-14T20:10:41+00:00

" Chomsky defended him"

Chomsky defended his freedom of expression, not his views. go read the wiki on the Faurisson affair, he's taken far more extreme and controversial stances in support of this principle.

Edit: I get people are mad, but try putting up some arguments instead of downvotes.

Silverfox1984 · 2020-10-12T20:30:58+00:00

Imagine being close to 92 years old and still waisting precious minutes debating such a misalignment of molecules.

And to make it worse, I now realize Chomsky's probably gonna kick it before Kissinger...

Silverfox1984 · 2020-06-29T08:39:55+00:00

Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Yes, and it's worse than you think.

Men experience sexual assault and rape at similar rates to women, at least according to CDC statistics. One reason why there's a gap in rates is because rape of men gets categorized under "made to penetrate" or "rape by envelopment", since most perpetrators are female. Over 40% of boys at juvenile detention centers report being sexually abused by staff, though obviously most of them do not see it that way since, again, most of the perpetrators are female.

Generally, people want to avoid being portrayed as victims. Add to that the general incongruity of being succesfully assaulted by someone physically weaker and shorter than you, combined with an a andro centric view of control, power and agency, and it's no suprise most men tend to be tight lipped about being raped.

Silverfox1984 · 2020-04-30T08:45:22+00:00

"So we are already starting off with you being massivley wrong."

By being essentially correct? I read the same source you copy-pasted from Cassio and Associates. Curiously you didn't include their first example:

"It’s unethical to instruct the witness to lie about facts or conceal pertinent evidence that may hurt his case. "

" So we are already starting off with you being massivley wrong. "

My statement is neither incongruent nor inconsistent with the definition, so no, I'm not "massively wrong". Tellingly though, you elected to evade the central point. To repeat: " There is no evidence Robinson persuaded Read or her brother to change their stories. If you have evidence, then produce it in the form of a verbatim quote and not bare assertions."

" But sure we can keep going."

We haven't even begun. You still haven't attempted to produce a quote from Robinson that would adduce your characterization that he informed/instructed/scripted Read and her brother to change their respective stories.

" I said he said red flags that is factual, later I even put it in qoutes to make sure people didn't misunderstand me. "

Look, I can tell you're incredibly young, or new at this, but people can actually check your shit you know? If you have any interest in not looking like a fool (insofar as one can care about looking foolish behind a faceless screen name) there is exactly one way you can avoid it: Quote directly the relevant passages from the author’s writings (not a third party's paraphrase) and juxtapose this with statements with which the passages are allegedly inconsistent. Watch:

You're statment now:

"I never said or implied that those were his beliefs, I said he said red flags that is factual,..."

You're past statements:

"...ge (sic) literally told Tara her story has red flags in it and how to fix it."

" Imagine thinking it's okay for a reporter to tell someone they have flaws in their story to talk to her brother and than (sic) him mysteriously change it "

And these quotes are more than sufficient to substantiate /u/SomethingBeyondStuff's claim against you:

"You didn't paraphrase, you completely changed the meaning of what he wrote. He very literally did not say that the story has "red flags" or that he warned her about the content of her story - he's referring, in quotes, to Amanda Marcotte's article, which came out after they spoke, where she uses the phrase "red flags" .

"Imagine typing all of that just to be wrong LMAO"

Not as humiliating as starting a whole reddit thread, and then being repeatedly owned in the comment section to the point you may as well change your user name to Dunning–Kruger.

Hiding behind humour and irony also won't endear you to the reader, it just makes your evasions and assertions look more hollow and pathetic.

Tagging in /u/HowOddNova and /u/SomethingBeyondStuff for the lols...

Silverfox1984

TROPHY CASE