Sue Klebold's interview

Dylan asked his mom to buy him a gun

Thank you much [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] !

I find it suspicious that right from the beginning, it's stated that they can't show or talk about certain things because of reporting standards on shootings...there goes freedom of the press and honest reporting.  Ouch.

Not denying that Dylan did have depressive tendencies, but does nobody participating in the interview have any clue as to how it could be made worse by a school environment where his intellect was undervalued (as other sources, mainly his peers, said?)

Tom Klebold's absence is kind of sad--it's his decision, but I wish his take on things had gotten more airtime.  I agree with him on so much of what he said in Andrew Solomon's book.

P.S. Every time a reporter drags "toxic masculinity" into this, I throw up in my mouth a little bit.

P.P.S Arrrgh the Cute Cat Effect upon seeing pictures of Dylan--it strikes again. (https://xkcd.com/231/)

LPorter101 wrote:

They're trotting out some FBI lady and Langman to talk about how much of a psychopath Eric was.

@LPorter,
What are you feelings and reactions on that? I would love to hear them.
I was angered and sickened as you've probably already read.
Why do you think they did that exactly as gasoline child pointed out wasn't this supposed to be all about Dylan and his Mom's experiences and thoughts?

All hail LPorter.
Long live the king.

PaintItBlack wrote:

LPorter101 wrote:

They're trotting out some FBI lady and Langman to talk about how much of a psychopath Eric was.

@LPorter,
What are you feelings and reactions on that? I would love to hear them.
I was angered and sickened as you've probably already read.
Why do you think they did that exactly as gasoline child pointed out this wasn't supposed to be all about Dylan and his Mom's experiences and thoughts?

I was disappointed but not shocked.

I tend to assume the worst ... I was halfway expecting to see Cullen pop up. I wish they had emphasized bullying more than they did. (In fact, I'm somewhat surprised that they didn't - it's a hot topic these days.)

Pretty much what I expected. At least she had the balls to speak up, unlike the Harris family, but I guess there really isn't much to say on their side except that their son was a psychopath. It seemed like they got divorced over the fact that Sue seems to not be able to "let it go" so to speak, and Tom might have excepted what has happened and has moved on.

slippy123 wrote:

Pretty much what I expected. At least she had the balls to speak up, unlike the Harris family, but I guess there really isn't much to say on their side except that their son was a psychopath. It seemed like they got divorced over the fact that Sue seems to not be able to "let it go" so to speak, and Tom might have excepted what has happened and has moved on.

Actually slippy,I'm, sure they would have a tremendous amount to say but I certainly can't blame them under the circumstances for not saying it.
And we have no proof that they believe that about their son at all, just some supposition.

PaintItBlack wrote:

slippy123 wrote:

Pretty much what I expected. At least she had the balls to speak up, unlike the Harris family, but I guess there really isn't much to say on their side except that their son was a psychopath. It seemed like they got divorced over the fact that Sue seems to not be able to "let it go" so to speak, and Tom might have excepted what has happened and has moved on.

Actually slippy,I'm, sure they would have a tremendous amount to say but I certainly can't blame them under the circumstances for not saying it.
And we have no proof that they believe that about their son at all, just some supposition.

The Harrises...they seem like much simpler people who want much quieter lives. Eric was a weird kid, and they probably never knew what to make of him, so they're going by the explanation of experts. It's what they have, to cope.

(My opinion of them used to be much more harsh, not anymore.)

PaintItBlack wrote:

slippy123 wrote:

Pretty much what I expected. At least she had the balls to speak up, unlike the Harris family, but I guess there really isn't much to say on their side except that their son was a psychopath. It seemed like they got divorced over the fact that Sue seems to not be able to "let it go" so to speak, and Tom might have excepted what has happened and has moved on.

Actually slippy,I'm, sure they would have a tremendous amount to say but I certainly can't blame them under the circumstances for not saying it.
And we have no proof that they believe that about their son at all, just some supposition.

Reading Mrs. Mauser's account of her meeting with the Harrises gave me the impression that they honestly don't know what went wrong.

Quote :

They seemed genuinely mystified by wht had happened to their son. They seemed to rather readily accept that he was a psychopath. They didn’t know how he became so. They said what we’ve heard in the media, that he “fooled them” and fooled the psychologist who was treating him. They felt mislead by the psychologist who told them not to be concerned about a trenchcoat, that it was “only a coat” and that he apparently regarded Eric’s problems as minor. They said that Eric did seem to feel slights intensely, and that once he had slammed his fist into a brick wall and scraped his knuckles but that that was one of few clues that they had ever had that he was an angry person. They admitted that he had few friends and wasn’t particularly interested in joining any clubs. They attributed it to his introverted nature.

I get the impression that they think "psychopath" is as good an answer as any. They're not saying, "Yeah, Dwayne Fusilier nailed it!" They're saying, "Something was wrong with our son, and we don't know what, and we don't think that it was our fault."

That's my take on it, anyway.

Wayne Harris told Wally Lamb that he didn't have any answers:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Gasolinechild,
Again, I must say there we have no real proof that Eric's parents believe he was a psychopath.
All we have is a second hand account from Mrs.Mauser that they SEEMED to accept that.
That could mean they just didn't argue when the Mausers' brought it up.
I would need much more definite proof before I accept that's what they believe.

Excerpts from "Meeting the Parents" from Walking in Daniel's Shoes pp 334-356:

The Harris' did not strike us as calculating or devious people. If anything, we felt they seemed rather hapless and oblivious. We concluded they likely were not aware enough, engaged enough, or perceptive enough to understand what w as going on with their son. The Harris' at least seemed to have some minimal level of involvement in their son’s life and were getting mental health counseling for him. They blamed addressing Eric's mental illness on Eric’s psychologist. The Harris' did not seem like callous or cruel people, but they also did not seem like overly empathetic or expressive people. We concluded they were not evil or totally disconnected parents, but they also did not strike us as a couple who were highly affectionate or emotionally connected to their child.

PaintItBlack wrote:

Again, I must say there we have no real proof that Eric's parents believe he was a psychopath.
All we have is a second hand account from Mrs.Mauser that they SEEMED to accept that.
That could mean they just didn't argue when the Mausers' brought it up.
I would need much more definite proof before I accept that's what they believe.

Yes.

I do hope that one day they can find the strength to speak publicly about their ordeal. Maybe now that Susan has spoken out, they will find it easier to do so.

But God bless them for being able to get up in the morning.

LPorter101 wrote:

PaintItBlack wrote:

Again, I must say there we have no real proof that Eric's parents believe he was a psychopath.
All we have is a second hand account from Mrs.Mauser that they SEEMED to accept that.
That could mean they just didn't argue when the Mausers' brought it up.
I would need much more definite proof before I accept that's what they believe.

Yes.

I do hope that one day they can find the strength to speak publicly about their ordeal. Maybe now that Susan has spoken out, they will find it easier to do so.

But God bless them for being able to get up in the morning.

I guess where I am coming from is that to me, to believe that about your own child whom you obviously loved, especially a child you will never see or talk to again in this life is an enormous thing, and I just want to see something more before I come to accept that's what they believe.

sororityalpha wrote:

Excerpts from "Meeting the Parents" from Walking in Daniel's Shoes pp 334-356:

The Harris' did not strike us as calculating or devious people. If anything, we felt they seemed rather hapless and oblivious. We concluded they likely were not aware enough, engaged enough, or perceptive enough to understand what w as going on with their son. The Harris' at least seemed to have some minimal level of involvement in their son’s life and were getting mental health counseling for him. They blamed addressing Eric's mental illness on Eric’s psychologist. The Harris' did not seem like callous or cruel people, but they also did not seem like overly empathetic or expressive people. We concluded they were not evil or totally disconnected parents, but they also did not strike us as a couple who were highly affectionate or emotionally connected to their child.

Aren't the Mausers assuming too much here?
Sure, they could have a general opinion that Eric's childhood was lacking or he wouldn't have done what he did, but how much could they really have learned about how the Harrises' were with Eric every day in one meeting?

You know what I can't fucking stand. (And Forgive me.. I've been a super long time lurker, and have quietly followed sites like this since 2011)

What I can't fucking stand... is how they portrayed the whole ABC Episode. They took what I assume was probably a three hour long interview, and cut it into less than 20mins if that.

And they tried to turn a mothers grieving interview, into a show about gun control What the Fuck. Seriously... this wasn't about portraying/selling a political view. This was a mom's response to the world...

Assholes. Complete Fucking Assholes.

DistantLurker wrote:

You know what I can't fucking stand. (And Forgive me.. I've been a super long time lurker, and have quietly followed sites like this since 2011)

What I can't fucking stand... is how they portrayed the whole ABC Episode. They took what I assume was probably a three hour long interview, and cut it into less than 20mins if that.

And they tried to turn a mothers grieving interview, into a show about gun control What the Fuck. Seriously... this wasn't about portraying/selling a political view. This was a mom's response to the world...

Assholes. Complete Fucking Assholes.

Yeah, I know what you mean. The interview was the "hook," but then they tried to make it into a mini-documentary or something. They had that FBI lady droning on.

And here's another random complaint: they showed the Patrick Ireland clip twice, but both times they cut away from it before he fell. i know that the documentary wasn't about him, but the way they edited that clip made it lose its impact.

PaintItBlack wrote:

I do hope that one day they can find the strength to speak publicly about their ordeal. Maybe now that Susan has spoken out, they will find it easier to do so.

Sue has released a few little responses over the years. Hardly anything significant like tonight, but still. The Harrises have only once written a letter to the victims of the family, sold their home.. and pretty much been in hiding since the event.

I think Wayne might be the sole motivator in that. But.. I wouldn't expect a response or interview anytime soon... if ever.

And they portrayed Eric like a complete fucking psychopath. This was a kid.. who was a apart of little league, excelled in school... and really.. seemed like a all american teenager.

No one wakes up and dreams/wants to kill everyone around them. Seriously. They Fucking Don't. To a certain degree... these poor boys deserve respect. Something obviously changed them... something horrible. They had dreams.. they had futures, and I know they we're not heartless. They deserve respect just like anybody else.

And it's absolutely heartbreaking seeing their names thrown through the trash.. on television. These reporters don't know what happened. They have some "views" of what happened that fit into a good picture.. for cheap ratings. But... in reality they are the scum. Contemplating ideas & views as well as making up lies on people they've never met.

(To be fair.. I'm not condoning what they did. But... at the end of the day, we can't say we knew what happened. And we never will.)

To assume, without knowing facts is just being ignorant. Doing it in front of millions to push a political view and trashing someone is just being a asshole.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], I don't have enough posts to send a PM response, but the answer to your question is No.

DistantLurker wrote:

And they portrayed Eric like a complete fucking psychopath. This was a kid.. who was a apart of little league, excelled in school... and really.. seemed like a all american teenager.

No one wakes up and dreams/wants to kill everyone around them. Seriously. They Fucking Don't. To a certain degree... these poor boys deserve respect. Something obviously changed them... something horrible. They had dreams.. they had futures, and I know they we're not heartless. They deserve respect just like anybody else.

And it's absolutely heartbreaking seeing there names thrown through the trash.. on televison. These reporters don't know what happened. They have some "views" of what happened that fit into a good picture.. for cheap ratings. If anyone... they are the scum. Contemplating and making up lies on people they've never met.

(To be fair.. I'm not condoning what they did. But... at the end of the day, we can't say we knew what happened. And we never will.)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.],
Wonderfully said! I agree with almost everything you said and feel the same anger and disgust at the networks tactics as you do.

Of course the interview ended with the talk about violent videogames and movies.

PaintItBlack wrote:

DistantLurker wrote:

And they portrayed Eric like a complete fucking psychopath. This was a kid.. who was a apart of little league, excelled in school... and really.. seemed like a all american teenager.

No one wakes up and dreams/wants to kill everyone around them. Seriously. They Fucking Don't. To a certain degree... these poor boys deserve respect. Something obviously changed them... something horrible. They had dreams.. they had futures, and I know they we're not heartless. They deserve respect just like anybody else.

And it's absolutely heartbreaking seeing there names thrown through the trash.. on televison. These reporters don't know what happened. They have some "views" of what happened that fit into a good picture.. for cheap ratings. If anyone... they are the scum. Contemplating and making up lies on people they've never met.

(To be fair.. I'm not condoning what they did. But... at the end of the day, we can't say we knew what happened. And we never will.)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.],
Wonderfully said! I agree with almost everything you said and feel the same anger and disgust at the networks tactics as you do.

I agree with all of this. Media people--blech. Am reminded of that one part from Natural Born Killers.

The whole thing had a sordidness to it. Except for the parts where Sue was speaking her mind, everyone else should've STFUed. She handled those loaded interview questions very well, didn't let the smarmy tv host exploit her emotions for shock value, and stayed on track with getting her message out there, because it wasn't the FBI's interview, it wasn't Diane Sawyer's interview, it was hers.

I didn't learn nothing new from this interview except few photos which had never been showing in public before. I do not put the blame on Sue about that but on ABC.

Has anybody the opportunity to watch the new interview w. BBC on Monday?

carrie12 wrote:

Has anybody the opportunity to watch the new interview w. BBC on Monday?

What's on BBC?

Another interview Sue gave A BBC reporter (hopefully a better conducted one than Diane Sawyer): [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Well.. that one is exciting. Maybe we'll actually get to hear her this time (end abc rant)

Saw the interview last night.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

The Harris house smelt of gas to the point the officers had to wear gas masks.

I also did hear about the Harris's refusing the officers on 4-20, while the Klebolds simply didn't believe that Dylan could be part of it. Also, in Bowling, Wayne Harris is heard saying his son may be responsible for the massacre.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Wait.... What?

I've never heard of the "Harris house smelt/smelling of Gas".... is this even remotely true? I mean.. I can't imagine this going undetected for any amount of time. Wouldn't this arouse suspicion significantly?

DistantLurker wrote:

Wait.... What?

I've never heard of the "Harris house smelt/smelling of Gas".... is this even remotely true? I mean.. I can't imagine this going undetected for any amount of time. Wouldn't this arouse suspicion significantly?

They like to hide the facts from everyone.

Take a look at the other site.

^That almost makes me feel like they we're desperate to write something to fill up pages.

Is it significant, maybe. But to some extent.. yeah a garage will smell like Gasoline, but nothing that would contaminate the whole house.

So.. if the Harrises home smelt so strongly.. why we're they not worried?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a unrelated note.... The Klebold home shows up as "Sold" in 2014 on a couple of websites. However.. Thomas is the reported owner.

DistantLurker wrote:

^That almost makes me feel like they we're desperate to write something to fill up pages.

Is it significant, maybe. But to some extent.. yeah a garage will smell like Gasoline, but nothing that would contaminate the whole house.

So.. if the Harrises home smelt so strongly.. why we're they not worried?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a unrelated note.... The Klebold home shows up as "Sold" in 2014 on a couple of websites. However.. Thomas is the reported owner.

The reason why the house smelt like gas was because of E&D having made final prepations there after Eric's parent had left for work.
On that day, E &D went back to Eric's house where they finished their work, made their final videotape and I guess just hung out for a bit. I'm not sure how long they were there.An hour and a half maybe?
Something like that.
Obviously Eric cared nothing about trying to disguise anything at this point.When the cops went down to his room, they also found a sawed off shotgun barrel and gun parts out in plain sight.

Something else that makes me angry is that Sue has to be so subtle and tiptoe around stating her continued devotion and love for her child, or risk an angry backlash.
It's like people are incredibly offended that she still dares to love her son and they demand that she be apologetic about it.
A mother should never have to apologize for her love for her child ever.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]: yes you are so right. but i think this is how society works

PaintItBlack wrote:

Please [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] or whoever, post the US airing dates and times for these BBC programs.
A close relative of mine gets BBC america and is  going to let me come to their house to watch and record them.
Thank you!!!!!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Here you have, the episode website with info about broadcasts: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

and the airing times and dates in BBC News Channel: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

and BBC World News: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thank you Gonz.
I am very bummed out but the interview today did not air on BBC America at all. I am hoping that the special coming up this weekend will.

Does anyone know if there us a transcript of the BBC A killer in the family program?

Found a random thought by a confused person worth sharing.


13 Feb 2016 03:28
So wait... They're using this hour to vilify Eric Harris?

Thank you for uploading the interviews, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

I would have liked to have heard more from Sue speaking freely, rather than the journalists leading the conversation with questions that I personally think were ridiculous. "Do you still love Dylan? Could have stopped Columbine? Do you ever think about the victims?"

I would have preferred questions like:

- Describe the dynamic between Dylan and Eric when you saw them interact.
- Talk about the ketchup incident and what you reported in your book about the freshmen.
- What's your favorite memory of Dylan?
- What questions do you feel that you should have asked Dylan, or what specific conversations should you have had?

I want to know her thoughts and memories, not the same old bullshit about how Eric is a psychopath and no, she still doesn't know how he hid all this.

I've read her book and watched most of the interviews. I do believe he's genuine but to be honest, there's something off about her. Multiple times in the book and in the interviews she repeats the same flowery clichés and metaphors when describing her feelings. It is a bit too much at times.  It's like she's quoting piece of literature, and could be mistaken as disingenuous or detached.

Something which struck me was one of the survivors posted on Facebook that Wayne and Kathy's letter so cold and emotionally stunted, while the Klebold's was personally and heartfelt whilst other's were angry that Sue wrote to them. Now, I'm not one to talk because I have not suffered such a tragedy, but I could almost see why victims and survivors are not happy, because her rhetoric is to poetic and fluffy to come across as insincere in my eyes.

I've just been thinking whilst flicking through Sue's book and interviews again, I feel I've been a little harsh on her. I stand by what I said in regard to her use of flowery language possibly being perceived as insincere by some of the survivors and victims.

However, do you think it's possible that she has been legally advised to stick to her comments and try not to add as little as possible, because if she even insinuates that Dylan was more compus mentis than she initially said it could potentially lead to more law suits against her?

Speaking of which, I don't know much about American law, how does the statue of limitations act work in regards to people not directly involved with a crime? (IE. The Harris and Klebolds / Columbine)

astrospace92 wrote:

I've just been thinking whilst flicking through Sue's book and interviews again, I feel I've been a little harsh on her. I stand by what I said in regard to her use of flowery language possibly being perceived as insincere by some of the survivors and victims.

However, do you think it's possible that she has been legally advised to stick to her comments and try not to add as little as possible, because if she even insinuates that Dylan was more compus mentis than she initially said it could potentially lead to more law suits against her?

Speaking of which, I don't know much about American law, how does the statue of limitations act work in regards to people not directly involved with a crime? (IE. The Harris and Klebolds / Columbine)

I am not sure about everything exactly but I know she cannot talk about anything that relates to the depositions for now. She gives the excuse of not giving details so that copycats won't read her book and get ideas. I do not like that this excuse is so widely given.