The Book of Matt (46 page)

During our interview with Stephanie, Glenn returned to the subject of drugs and asked Stephanie to tell us again what she remembered about the exchange of money.

“… [As] I was riding [in] the limo and going to a party, [Doc] was exchanging money with Matthew Shepard,” she said. “Aaron I’m not sure about at the time.”

A few moments later Glenn inquired, “Has Doc ever told you, asked you, threatened you to … never talk about this stuff?”

“He said if I would confront a reporter by the name of Steve, not to mention anything to him because he’s worried about this …”

“But was he saying that because he didn’t want to really help Steve or because he wanted to protect himself?”

“I think to protect himself.”

“Why are you telling us all this tonight, Stephanie?”

“Because I want to, I’m tired of hearing the false rumors that are going around about the gay hate crime and I just want to go on with my life and just … try to straighten it out.”

“Are you worried about Doc at all trying to … come after you … or you think he’ll just deny it? What do you think he’ll do?”

“I’m — I’m worried. That Doc or somebody else might try to come after me.”

“But you’ve just decided to sort of tell it like it is?”

“Yes. I want to tell it like it is and get the truth out there.”

“Did you ever tell this to anybody else at the time, what happened?”

“No, I haven’t.”

“Not even your husband?

“My husband, he knew what was going on but he kept to himself about it.”

Stephanie went on to say, “[Doc] wasn’t being honest with me, I know that … Every time I’ve seen [him], he’s told me not to say anything period … because he was worried about his safety.”

But according to Stephanie and Elaine, Aaron and Matthew were definitely among the small batch of guests who stayed overnight at Doc’s.

“The next morning, Doc decided to give them all a ride [back to Laramie], Matthew Shepard, Aaron McKinney, and the other people that were with them …” Stephanie said. “And then I stayed behind, which was really in the afternoon, and then he took me home as well.”

THIRTY-SIX

An Easy Mark

Shortly after Russell arrived at the state penitentiary in Rawlins in April 1999 to begin his orientation as a “lifer,” prison officials moved him into protective custody because he was apparently being preyed upon sexually. Word also came back to the jail in Laramie that Aaron could expect the same treatment when he got sent up.

From spring to early fall of that year, Aaron’s court-appointed defense team — attorneys Dion Custis, Jason Tangeman, and Barbara Parnell — kept Cal Rerucha busy by filing scores of motions, most of them aimed at forestalling the possibility of a death sentence. On the public relations front, two Catholic chaplains from the University of Wyoming’s Newman Center supported the attorneys’ legal efforts by attacking Cal in the local press, mainly with the argument that capital punishment was a violation of Catholic doctrine. One of the priests, Father Roger Schmidt, was also Aaron’s personal confessor.

As Aaron’s trial drew closer, the animosity between Cal and the Newman priests intensified. Some Catholics in town, including a few parishioners at St. Laurence O’Toole — the church Cal had attended all his life — proposed that he be excommunicated.

A devoted Catholic, Cal said he was enraged by the priests’ political maneuverings and their “complete disrespect for the separation of church and state.” Not only did he fight back hard against their efforts, but by the time of Aaron’s trial in the fall Dennis Shepard would join Cal in expressing his disdain. On the day Aaron was sentenced, Matthew’s father stated in court:

I find it intolerable that the priests of the Catholic Church and the Newman Center would attempt to influence the jury, the prosecution, and the outcome of this trial by their
castigation and persecution of Mr. Rerucha and his family by [their] newspaper advertisements and by their presence in the courtroom. I find it difficult to believe that they speak for all Catholics. If the leaders of churches want to speak as private citizens, that is one thing; if they say they represent the beliefs of their church, that is another. This country was founded on separation of church and state. The Catholic Church has stepped over the line and has become a political group with its own agenda.

But Dennis Shepard would also make a few statements in court that day that raised different concerns among some observers, including gay attorneys and activists who attended the trial. Some questioned whether the essential, time-honored boundary between an impartial prosecution by the state and the rights of crime victims had been breached in the Shepard case. Moments before he criticized the Newman priests, Dennis Shepard had acknowledged:

Mr. Rerucha took the oath of office to protect the rights of the citizens of Albany County … regardless of his personal feelings and beliefs.

At no time did Mr. Rerucha make any decision on the outcome of this case without the permission of Judy and me. It was our decision to take the case to trial just as it was our decision to accept … the earlier plea bargain of Mr. Henderson. A trial was necessary [for Aaron McKinney] to show that this was a hate crime and not just a robbery gone bad. If we had sought a plea bargain earlier, the facts of this case would not have been known, and the question would always be present that we had something to hide.

A New York–based gay activist, Bill Dobbs of Queer Watch, who was among the most vocal opponents of the death penalty while the Shepard case was in progress, later commented that he’d found “the very active role” played by Matthew’s parents in the prosecution of
Aaron and Russell “troubling from a legal standpoint … insofar as justice was concerned.”

After Russell’s sentencing in April, Dobbs — who is also an attorney — had been quoted by the Associated Press.

“For us who are opposed to the taking of life, if we helped to stop an execution, that’s a good thing,” he said. “It’s bittersweet. Matthew Shepard is not going to be brought back by this plea or this sentencing but it is a victory over violence because a possible execution, another death, has been averted.”

But another gay activist, who asked not to be identified, said that it wasn’t only the Catholic priests who had an agenda or a strong personal stake in the outcome of the case. According to the activist, the persuasive courtroom statements read by Matthew’s parents at Russell’s sentencing hearing and later at Aaron’s trial had been carefully crafted with the help of gay organizations in Washington and Los Angeles.

With Aaron’s trial scheduled to begin on the one-year anniversary of Matthew’s murder in October, the eyes of the world would be on Laramie again. Meanwhile, in the intervening months, gay rights activists had continued to lobby for federal hate crime legislation, using the murder to rally support.

But the media frenzy around Aaron’s trial would prove to be more intense than anything that had preceded it. More protesters came to town, requiring more security for blocks around the courthouse. In addition to the now-familiar band of hellfire fundamentalists led by the notorious preacher Fred Phelps, there were activists against the death penalty (ACLU, Amnesty International, Quakers); locals dressed as white-robed angels; numerous national and regional gay organizations, including Act Up, the Human Rights Campaign, Lambda, GLAAD, and Dykes on Bikes; and even a fringe group that staged a mock execution in front of the courthouse, showing Aaron being beaten to death just as Matthew had been beaten.

During a tedious jury selection process, Cal and the defense attorneys had screened hundreds of potential jurors.

Russell, who had been transported back to the county jail for the trial, was still expected to testify for the prosecution — which left many wondering if there would be any surprise revelations from the witness stand. But after the trial began, Russell changed his mind and refused to testify. His decision angered Cal, but with two consecutive life sentences Russell had little to gain and a great deal to lose: If fellow inmates got word that he had testified against Aaron, it would brand him forever as a snitch. (Russell later credited one of his attorneys, Jane Eakin, with helping him make that decision. Eakin, who today serves as a circuit court judge in the town of Rawlins where Russell is serving out his life terms, apparently understood the personal harm that could come to him if he took the stand.)

In his opening statement to the jury on October 25, 1999, Cal began: “Ladies and gentlemen … the evidence in this case will show that Matthew Shepard was 21 years of age. He was a student at the University of Wyoming, and he was openly gay. This case will not be about the life of Matthew Shepard. It will simply be about the pain, suffering, and death of Matthew Shepard at the hands of the defendant … Mr. McKinney.” Cal promised to present evidence of kidnapping, robbery, aggravated robbery, and premeditated first-degree murder with malice.

By the end of the trial ten days later, he would sum up his case: “The only piece of the puzzle that is missing is Matthew Shepard. Even though he cannot testify, he fills every corner of the room … and I ask you to do justice.” In actual fact, the trial itself offered few surprises yet it left many pieces of the puzzle missing — notably the story of how Matthew had become trapped in an underworld where Aaron was first his friend and occasional sex partner, then his competitor and adversary, and finally his killer.

Much as the media had done, Cal painted a picture of stark contrasts between Matthew’s world and the world inhabited by Aaron and Russell. “Mr. Shepard paid in bills [at the Fireside bar],” he said, “he was immaculately dressed, he was polite, his shoes were shined, he had the air of someone who was educated and someone who was wealthy.” Aaron and Russell, on the other hand, “spilled dimes and
quarters to pay for a pitcher of beer, and they asked for the cheapest. Their manner is rough. They’re not polite … and they look across the bar at Matthew Shepard. They could see he is … an easy mark.”

Slowly and carefully, Cal outlined key facts and evidence in the case — most of them indisputable — and gave the jury a preview of the testimony they could expect to hear from his principal witnesses.

“At the conclusion … the evidence will be overwhelming for kidnapping, for robbery and aggravated robbery, and for premeditated first-degree murder with malice,” he told the jury at the end of his statement. “… We will ask for your guilty verdicts on all three counts.” (Robbery and aggravated robbery were merged as a single count.)

Laramie attorney Jason Tangeman, with whom Cal had faced off the previous year when he tried Kevin Robinson for the murder of Daphne Sulk, delivered the opening statement for the defense. (Cal and DeBree had earlier dubbed Tangeman “the Boy Wonder.”) The thrust of Tangeman’s message to the jury was that Aaron had admitted his involvement in Matthew’s death, but it had not been premeditated:

[Aaron McKinney] did not intend to cause the death of Matthew Shepard. Matthew Shepard did not die during the unbroken chain of events of a robbery. The defense … will argue that Matthew Shepard died during five minutes of emotional rage and chaos. The defense will argue that Matthew … died as a result of heat of passion. Matthew Shepard died because Aaron McKinney lost control of his emotions, and he became, in his words, furious.

… You will hear his words in his confession. “I didn’t mean to kill him.”

… The physical evidence will support and corroborate “I didn’t mean to kill him” …

The question that is going to be before you, the jury, is why it occurred. You … are going to have to answer that question for Aaron McKinney. Why was he furious?

Why did he blackout? Why did he feel possessed? Why did Aaron McKinney do what he did?

During the weeklong trial that unfolded, Aaron’s attorneys never alluded to his personal relationship with Matthew, or what it involved. On the contrary, Tangeman had declared erroneously in his opening statement, “In fact, Aaron and Russell, when they leave for the bar [on the night of October 6, 1998] have never even heard the name Matthew Shepard.”

The defense team also presented a very narrow view of Aaron’s sex-and-drug activities and what their impact may have been on his explosive violence. Instead, both the defense and the prosecution assumed — probably for the sake of their arguments — that Aaron was straight, thereby reinforcing the impression that Matthew’s homosexuality was the trigger that set Aaron off.

Although Aaron’s attorneys raised the issue of his chronic methamphetamine use and called an expert witness to testify regarding the hyperactive behavior and paranoia that meth causes, they didn’t fully address the relationship between meth addiction, meth-induced psychosis, and extreme violence. In addition, the attorneys steered clear of Aaron’s extensive dealing activities, including at least one trip to a California meth lab.

I learned in the course of my investigation, however, that one of Aaron’s main drug suppliers — whose name never surfaced during the case — was awaiting federal sentencing on interstate drug trafficking charges on the night of Matthew’s fatal beating in October 1998. The supplier, who was arrested on a Nevada highway in 1997 with a Mexican accomplice — while driving a vehicle loaded with meth and other drugs — had been on his way back to Laramie with the shipment when he was apprehended. According to several sources, Aaron and a few of his friends had worked for the supplier, distributing product for him.

Knowing that the supplier had accepted a plea agreement and was soon to be sentenced in federal court, Aaron lied to local police about drugs to protect the supplier and keep his name out of the Shepard case. Knowledgable sources have also alleged that a couple of high-level police officers in Laramie were aware of Aaron’s deception, yet
they had their own motives for allowing the story of an anti-gay hate crime to go unquestioned.

In retrospect, I recalled that a friend of Matthew from the Denver circle had said Aaron and Matthew reported to different “co-captains,” and that both young men were at risk because of what they knew about the meth trade in Wyoming — and beyond. But my own investigation suggests there were more than two co-captains operating in Laramie at the time Matthew was killed, and that these rival operators weren’t always competitors and adversaries; they cooperated when it was in their interest to do so. According to former dealing cohorts of Aaron, his Laramie-based suppliers and the “top dogs” in Matthew’s Denver circle were well acquainted and, in some instances, were friends.