Like clockwork, and unwittingly proving my point, a bigoted neanderthal homophobic troll crawls out from under its rock, cowardly creates new single purpose account, and mendaciously dumps a huge steaming pile of bullshit, which gets immediately downvoted and flagged by the community as it deserves (so I have to grudgingly vouch for it to respond), then it crawls back under its rock forever, afraid and unable to counter the objective truth and cited quotes and evidence that completely undermines its discredited homophobic propaganda.

TL;DR: The “Matthew Shepard was a meth dealer” claim comes from a widely discredited book, The Book of Matt, which has been publicly dismantled by journalists, LGBTQ+ advocates, and law enforcement alike for poor sourcing, manipulated quotes, and self-aggrandizing revisionism. Here’s the evidence:

----

According to Wikipedia, summarizing Alyssa Rosenberg’s critique, and citing evidence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Matt

>Culture critic Alyssa Rosenberg criticized the book for being poorly sourced, stating: "by not distinguishing which quotations are manufactured from recollections, which are paraphrases recounted by sources, and which were spoken directly to him", and countered most of the major aspects of the book. [10] For example, she disputed claims about Shepard's alleged drug dealing, as most of the sources remained suspect or otherwise unsubstantiated. "Jimenez never qualifies how credible the sources are, or validates their closeness to Shepard, or evaluates the potential motivations for their accounts", she wrote. [10]

>Some police officials interviewed after Jimenez's book's publication disputed certain claims made in the book. Dave O'Malley, the Laramie police commander over the investigations division at the time of Shepard's murder, said Jimenez's claim that Shepard was "a methamphetamine kingpin is almost humorous. Someone that would buy into that certainly would believe almost anything they read." Other police, such as the officer who found the murder weapon, believed it was a drug-related killing. [11]

>Rob Debree, lead sheriff's investigator at the time, said the book contains "factual errors and lies", and deemed Jimenez's claim that Shepard was a drug dealer "truly laughable". [12]

----

[10] "'The Book Of Matt' Doesn't Prove Anything, Other Than The Size Of Stephen Jimenez's Ego"

https://archive.thinkprogress.org/the-book-of-matt-doesn-t-p...

Manipulated and Unreliable Quotations:

>“Jimenez compounds the problem by not distinguishing which quotations are manufactured from recollections, which are paraphrases recounted by sources, and which were spoken directly to him.”

>“Either Jimenez appears to be regularly and substantially manipulating quotations, or he’s using a practice that accidentally but substantially undermines his own credibility.”

>“Jimenez quotes Cal Rerucha... the ellipses turning the quotation incoherent.”

Weak, Unsubstantiated Claims:

>“Jimenez will make a statement like, ‘there are also many reasons to believe that the six ounces Haselhuhn had bragged about and the six ounces Matthew was slated to deliver... were one and the same,’ and then wander off... before laying out those reasons and presenting the evidence that might render them credible.”

>“When he does bother to source... it’s with interviews with people who say things like ‘It’s a fact,’ when asked ‘How do you know this?’”

>“Jimenez never qualifies how credible the sources are, or validates their closeness to Shepard, or evaluates the potential motivations for their accounts.”

Leaps of Logic and Missing Evidence:

>“The sourcing gets particularly weak when Jimenez tries to make the leap... from suggesting that Shepard used methamphetamine to suggesting that he was dealing on a large scale.”

>“Given the available evidence, it comes across as demanding a laughable level of trust.”

>“Is Jimenez relying on the testimony of long-term meth users...? Is he talking to dealers who might want to make themselves seem like more significant players than they are?”

Dubious Motive and Narcissism:

>“The real subject of The Book Of Matt, or at least the place where Jimenez’s reportorial detail and emotional energy seem to be most focused, is Jimenez himself.”

>“Jimenez desperately wants to be seen as a brave social commentator and reporter... Instead... he comes across like an outdated gossip.”

>“Without an actual drug syndicate to offer us as proof, he’s trying to distract us with breakfast food and hotel bookings.”

Self-Aggrandizement and Political Posturing:

>“Jimenez sets himself up as a victim... When the Times Magazine kills the story... he says ‘I surmised that the story’s politically sensitive content was the problem.’”

>“When a gay rights activist questions Jimenez’s project... Jimenez responds by harping on his own gay rights record.”

Final Verdict:

>“Jimenez may still believe that he’s telling some sort of brave truth about Matthew Shepard. But it’s clear that... the only person he ends up exposing is himself.”

----

[11] "The truth behind America's most famous gay-hate murder"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/26/the-truth-behi...

Casper Star Tribune Editorial (Matthew's hometown paper):

>"From the beginning there have been those who want to ignore the sadistic homophobic motives of Shepard’s attackers and instead insist the matter was a drug deal gone bad."

>"An award Jimenez had recently received for his book 'deserves rejection'."

Contradictory Evidence from Law Enforcement:

>While one former officer (Flint Waters) speculates about a drug motive and praises the book, other law enforcement officials and the court case itself never substantiate the claim. Importantly, the book relies on speculative commentary, not formal investigative findings.

Bindel paraphrasing in The Guardian:

>“The police did not investigate the killers’ relationship to the gay community.”

>"Matthew’s drug abuse, and the fact that he knew one of his killers prior to the attack, was never explored in court."

>"Neither was the rumour that the killers knew that he had access to a shipment of crystal meth..."

These absences from the legal proceedings weaken the claim that they were central motives.

Skepticism from LGBTQ+ Advocates and Journalists:

>"Jimenez has been accused of being a revisionist, a criticism usually reserved for extreme rightwing ideologues that deny the Holocaust, and labelled a homophobe."

>"The Advocate... published a piece entitled: 'Why I’m Not Reading the ‘Trutherism’ About Matt Shepard’."

>"Wypijewski thinks the reason some sections of the gay community are so angry... is obvious: 'Jimenez has taken away their angel... The people shaping the news require a very simple story – they have to be angels and villains.’"

Narrative Issues and Lack of Substantiated Evidence:

>"This does not make the perfect poster boy for the gay-rights movement,” says Jimenez. “Which is a big part of the reason my book has been so trashed."

This reflects self-pity and martyrdom rather than engagement with factual rebuttals.

>"Although McKinney has never acknowledged that he knew Matthew, Jimenez found a dozen sources that had seen them together."

>Yet these sources are not validated, and McKinney continues to deny the relationship, making the book’s central premise heavily disputed.

----

[12] "Shepard book stirs controversy"

https://web.archive.org/web/20200916144405/https://www.ebar....

Matthew Shepard Foundation:

>“Attempts now to rewrite the story of this hate crime appear to be based on untrustworthy sources, factual errors, rumors, and innuendo rather than the actual evidence gathered by law enforcement and presented in a court of law.”
— Jason Marsden, Executive Director

>“We do not respond to innuendo, rumor or conspiracy theories. Instead we remain committed to honoring Matthew's memory, and refuse to be intimidated by those who seek to tarnish it.”

Jason Marsden (Shepard’s friend and journalist):

Though Jimenez quoted him from an earlier interview, Marsden later disputes being represented accurately:

>“I was not afforded an opportunity to review any of that interview material before [the book] was published. I can't tell you if I said that or not... I don't recall the context of that interview nine years ago...”

>“If [Jimenez] is asserting that I agree with his theory of the case, that is not true,”
— Marsden, who also stated he never knew Shepard to use meth.

Dave O'Malley (Lead Laramie police investigator):

>“I have a myriad of issues with the idea that meth was involved, including the allegations about Shepard.”

>“As for Shepard being 'a methamphetamine kingpin, that in itself, is almost humorous. Someone that would buy into that certainly would believe almost anything they read.”

>“I thought the only good thing about [the book] was I didn't have to pay to buy it.”

Rob DeBree (Lead sheriff's investigator):

>“Not once did [Jimenez] ever speak with me,” and “he didn’t try.”
— Jimenez claims he did attempt, but this is disputed.

>“The book includes 'factual errors and lies,' including a statement about someone shooting through Rerucha's window.”

>“The notion that Shepard was a drug dealer was 'truly laughable.'”

Jason Tangeman (McKinney’s defense attorney):

>“I don't have to be told what happened. I know what happened.”
— Dismisses the need to read the book or other media portrayals.

>“I told [Jimenez] I didn’t know of any evidence to support [a drug deal theory].”

Wyatt Skaggs (Henderson’s attorney):

>“[Jimenez was] a reporter who doesn't know very much about the case.”
— After reading about half the book, declined to comment further.

----