Thoughts on this Cullen interview....

What do you guys think about what he says in this interview. I know the consensus around here is that he's not very liked...

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

Here he is again blaming Eric alone and loving on poor Dylan. "dylan tagging along on Eric's missions" even though Dylan was doing these missions with Zach even before Eric came along.

He is laughable to me. Some of the things he says. There was so much misinformation in the months and even years after Columbine and even though a lot of things have been proven untrue or wrong in some way Cullen still latches onto those "facts"

One of the things he kept saying in this interview was the word "Simple". Eric was a "simple" boy....this is a "simple" case because so much was left behind. I would never use the word "simple" for anything related to Columbine

He also mentioned that a psychopath is someone you can trust...that people always think they can trust a psychopath or depend on them. I don't recall anyone saying they trusted Eric over anyone else. In fact no one was surprised Eric was involved in this...he really didn't con that many people

The comments are pretty good though lol

Lizpuff wrote:

"dylan tagging along on Eric's missions" even though Dylan was doing these missions with Zach even before Eric came along.

Actually Zach stated that he accompanied Eric & Dylan on the missions (page 010754)

Eric states that "we ..." from mission 1 onwards (implying at least Eric & Dylan), and specifically mentions "Kibbz" (Zach) by Mission 4, although Zach may have been with them from Mission 1.

Eric & Dylan & Zach did the Missions together.

Lizpuff wrote:

One of the things he kept saying in this interview was the word "Simple".  Eric was a "simple" boy....this is a "simple" case because so much was left behind.  I would never use the word "simple" for anything related to Columbine
l

My thoughts exactly. He makes me sick.

I've posted before that I actually believe he has some sort of crush on Dylan Klebold, and I stand by that assertion. Bizarre.

[quote="sororityalpha"]

Lizpuff wrote:

"dylan tagging along on Eric's missions" even though Dylan was doing these missions with Zach even before Eric came along.

Actually Zach stated that he accompanied Eric & Dylan on the missions (page 010754)

Eric states that "we ..." from mission 1 onwards (implying at least Eric & Dylan), and specifically mentions "Kibbz" (Zach) by Mission 4, although Zach may have been with them from Mission 1.

Eric & Dylan & Zach did the Missions together.

[/quote

What about when Dylan writes about himself and Zach doing things like tp houses and cigars etc first with no mention of Eric? Maybe Eric wrote down the missions and called his first #1 but I think Dylan and Zach did missions of their own without Eric

Lizpuff wrote:

Here he is again blaming Eric alone and loving on poor Dylan.  "dylan tagging along on Eric's missions" even though Dylan was doing these missions with Zach even before Eric came along.

He is laughable to me.  Some of the things he says.  There was so much misinformation in the months and even years after Columbine and even though a lot of things have been proven untrue or wrong in some way Cullen still latches onto those "facts"

One of the things he kept saying in this interview was the word "Simple".  Eric was a "simple" boy....this is a "simple" case because so much was left behind.  I would never use the word "simple" for anything related to Columbine

He also mentioned that a psychopath is someone you can trust...that people always think they can trust a psychopath or depend on them.  I don't recall anyone saying they trusted Eric over anyone else.  In fact no one was surprised Eric was involved in this...he really didn't con that many people

The comments are pretty good though lol

I agree completely. Cullen is terrible when it comes to blinding himself to facts. Dylan did mention the missions first and they originally had nothing to do with Eric. From the way the "Mission Logs" read Eric latched on to the idea of them though and adopted it as if it was his own. That's a very follower thing to do and there's quite a few instances like that too. I recall reading that Eric put a Rammstein sticker on his car after Dylan did the same a week before. Eric desperately needed his approval, and at times I even feel like Dylan was quietly manipulating him. You'd never know it though if Cullen's book is the only thing you read on the subject. "Simple" is not a word that describes this case at all.

Nirvana92 wrote:

Lizpuff wrote:

Here he is again blaming Eric alone and loving on poor Dylan.  "dylan tagging along on Eric's missions" even though Dylan was doing these missions with Zach even before Eric came along.

He is laughable to me.  Some of the things he says.  There was so much misinformation in the months and even years after Columbine and even though a lot of things have been proven untrue or wrong in some way Cullen still latches onto those "facts"

One of the things he kept saying in this interview was the word "Simple".  Eric was a "simple" boy....this is a "simple" case because so much was left behind.  I would never use the word "simple" for anything related to Columbine

He also mentioned that a psychopath is someone you can trust...that people always think they can trust a psychopath or depend on them.  I don't recall anyone saying they trusted Eric over anyone else.  In fact no one was surprised Eric was involved in this...he really didn't con that many people

The comments are pretty good though lol

I agree completely. Cullen is terrible when it comes to blinding himself to facts. Dylan did mention the missions first and they originally had nothing to do with Eric. From the way the "Mission Logs" read Eric latched on to the idea of them though and adopted it as if it was his own. That's a very follower thing to do and there's quite a few instances like that too. I recall reading that Eric put a Rammstein sticker on his car after Dylan did the same a week before. Eric desperately needed his approval, and at times I even feel like Dylan was quietly manipulating him. You'd never know it though if Cullen's book is the only thing you read on the subject. "Simple" is not a word that describes this case at all.

I still haven't read his book. I have it but can't make myself open it up

"Get up!"

"Maybe we should start knifing people, that'd be more fun"

"So many people need to die!"

"Reb, there's a nigger over here."

~Dylan 'loving, sensitive boy' Klebold

Is it true that Cullen has either now or in the past told Columbiners to "go kill yourselves"?
Someone said this online and I've longed to know if there is any truth to it.

Venganza wrote:

"Get up!"

"Maybe we should start knifing people, that'd be more fun"

"So many people need to die!"

"Reb, there's a nigger over here."

~Dylan 'loving, sensitive boy' Klebold

Omg don't be mean, he was just ~misunderstood~.

bubbles wrote:

Venganza wrote:

"Get up!"

"Maybe we should start knifing people, that'd be more fun"

"So many people need to die!"

"Reb, there's a nigger over here."

~Dylan 'loving, sensitive boy' Klebold

Omg don't be mean, he was just ~misunderstood~.

Nah. Eric was a satanist and a practicing witch, he put Dylan under a spell

I wouldn't read or watch a Cullen interview if you paid me.

Dylan's Journal Wednesday July 23 1997:

When he and I first were friends, well, I finally found someone who was like me, who appreciated me and shared very common interests. Ever since 7th grade, I’ve felt lonely. When [Zach] came around, I finally felt happiness (sometimes). We did cigars, drinking, sabotage to houses, EVERYTHING for the first time together and now that he’s “moved on” I feel so lonely, without a friend.

*Dylan specifically mentions Zach in this part of his journal. He references Zach and him doing things for the first time together - he does not mention Eric because he is only talking about Zach.

If Dylan was talking about Eric in this part of his journal he would mention the same things they did together like cigars, drinking, sabotage to houses, etc.

sororityalpha wrote:

Dylan's Journal Wednesday July 23 1997:

When he and I first were friends, well, I finally found someone who was like me, who appreciated me and shared very common interests. Ever since 7th grade, I’ve felt lonely. When [Zach] came around, I finally felt happiness (sometimes). We did cigars, drinking, sabotage to houses, EVERYTHING for the first time together and now that he’s “moved on” I feel so lonely, without a friend.

*Dylan specifically mentions Zach in this part of his journal. He references Zach and him doing things for the first time together - he does not mention Eric because he is only talking about Zach.

If Dylan was talking about Eric in this part of his journal he would mention the same things they did together like cigars, drinking, sabotage to houses, etc.

Yea that is why I said Dylan and Zach were doing the "missions" without Eric and before they were really "friends". Eric may have swooped in and started calling them "missions" but in reality it was Zach and Dylan before it was Dylan and Eric

Lizpuff, what I meant was that if Dylan was talking about Eric in this part he would have said the SAME thing - that him and Eric did things for the first time together - cigars, drinking, etc ...

From what Eric/Dylan/Zach have stated about the "missions" - it sounds like they all did them together.

Eric and Dylan always spent a lot of time together, ever since they became friends.In some of their earlier years they spent more time in a group with Nate, Zack, but I believe in their last year they were often on their own and they probably spent more time together than with anyone else.

I can see Dylan and Zach doing all the mischievous stuff first, and then Eric coming along and giving them the "Missions" nickname. Eric was always grandiose about everything, and had to give elaborate nicknames and code words for alot of his doings.

I dont think Cullen deprived Dylan of any responsibilty(IDK why anyone would). He pretty much hold them both accountable in the book. The question of wether or not Dylan was a follower or equal oportunity participant, I think is open to debate. Peter Langmann argues that in cases where you have two shooters- such as Jonesboro- usually, theres a leader and a follower. When it comes to the Columbine- killers, I think Ive read different statements. Some friends portrayed Dylan as a follower of Eric, but Im aware that some profilers have argued otherwise.

Langmann examined the phenomenon of pair shooters in hes book 'Why kids kill'. He argues that psychopathic shooters rely on followers to work with them. How does he portray Dylan? Basically, he argues that Dylan craved acceptance from others. He furthermore argues that Dylan had lost a friendship and therefore attached himself to Eric. And this seems to have created a closer bond between the two.

Sue Klebold, on the other hand, argues that bullying played a role for these two to form a closer bond. Theres the argument of attachment. That doesnt deprive Dylan of any responsibilty, but I think it opens up a few relevant questions

I think that Cullen at times comes off as a bit simplistic in hes portrayal. I dont think you can narrow school shootings down to depression.

Yet, reading hes book and watching the interviews, hes not as inaccurate as people give him credit for, and the most virulent haters seems to be people that believes in the idea that they were bullied into retaliation. Everyone that have researched school shootings and rampete shooters more in depth knows that this is not true.

As for the Brenda Parker- story, I looked it up in hes book. Turns out that he eventually dismissed this claim, when he re- published the book.

This is just my opinion and its not an expert one at that: Be critical, but ask questions. I found that some of hes claims seemed very simplistic, but I wouldnt dismiss hes book as a whole. There are certain aspects eiyh the book that doesnt sit well with me at all, but I could say the same thing about Ralph Larkin, Jeff Kass, Brooks Brown and Sue Klebold. I dont think Cullen is any exception.

What I take issue with is how he talks about bullying and depression in the book. For instance, I dont think that hes explanation for why they werent bullied is a very good one to begin with. I dont necessarily entirely trust Brooks Browns accounts as entirely accurate, either, as other withness accounts have argued that they were well liked by other people. Its more how Cullen takes on the Jeffco- documents to support the view that they werent bullied. Yet, when researching the Jeffco- documents, I found that there were plenty of accounts which talks about harassment and bullying in both directions. Also, Governor Bill Owens Columbine Report have argued that they were both, basically. Whereas Frank Ochberg have dismissed the claim.

Now, its not that Im going to say that it's either true or false, as the statements contradicts one another. But I sincerely think that he should be representing that argument a bit better as there are sources which give support to the notion that they were bullied. And I dont see him trying to get into depths about this.

And than theres hes argument about depression: I dont think you can narrow the whole thing down to depression. From most of the research Ive looked into, school shootings are usually extremely complex and its difficult to narrow it down to one thing. I dont think depression is an adequate answer. How many school shooters have been depressed? I have no idea. But one thing that pops up frequently is that they are extremely frustrated in some shape or form. I do not, however, think that we can focus solely on one thing. I think it's luducrous to suggest that bullying or any other single problem causes school shootings, as this is blantantly false. What I do think, however, is that theres probably a multitude of factors, and sometimes bullying, depression etc, are factors which comes into play. They did a research in Finland about the connection between bullying and school shootings:

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

It's an interesting theory where bullying comes into this. But I still think it's a bit simplistic to focus solely on bullying in cases like these. In any case, there has to be something more

Norwegian wrote:

As for the Brenda Parker- story, I looked it up in hes book. Turns out that he eventually dismissed this claim, when he re- published the book.  

He "dismissed it" by saying something along the lines of he shouldn't have been so trusting as to believe her story was true.
This guy had 10 years to research and write his book. All of the Brenda Parker investigation came out in the first year after the shooting and it is abundantly clear that the police knew from the jump that she was a liar/fraud/fangirl. The police knew she never met Eric. I firmly believe Cullen knew it, too. If he actually read the police reports there is no possible way he didn't.
The question then becomes, why did he include her? Could it be, perhaps, that she very nicely tied up the picture of Eric as the popular, charming ladies man that he was trying to paint? I believe so.

He took her out only when he realized that other people were actually reading the 11k and knew Parker was full of shit. But even then he portrays it as, "oh, poor me, I was fooled." I call Shenanigans.

Norwegian wrote:

They did a research in Finland about the connection between bullying and school shootings:

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

I'm not going to read an article that's titled "white rage". Could you imagine how people would feel if an article about gang violence was titled "black rage"?

QuestionMark wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

They did a research in Finland about the connection between bullying and school shootings:

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

I'm not going to read an article that's titled "white rage". Could you imagine how people would feel if an article about gang violence was titled "black rage"?

'White rage' in this case means rage, not race. Like the article says, its a form of rage. A better term for it would be 'controlled anger'. Its about repressed rage and bullying in connection to school shootings.

Norwegian wrote:

QuestionMark wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

They did a research in Finland about the connection between bullying and school shootings:

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

I'm not going to read an article that's titled "white rage". Could you imagine how people would feel if an article about gang violence was titled "black rage"?

'White rage' in this case means rage, not race. Like the article says, its a form of rage. A better term for it would be 'controlled anger'.  Its about repressed rage and bullying in connection to school shootings.

Ah, I see. Can't be too careful considering how many people are eager to present mass shootings as a white male problem only.

QuestionMark wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

QuestionMark wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

They did a research in Finland about the connection between bullying and school shootings:

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

I'm not going to read an article that's titled "white rage". Could you imagine how people would feel if an article about gang violence was titled "black rage"?

'White rage' in this case means rage, not race. Like the article says, its a form of rage. A better term for it would be 'controlled anger'.  Its about repressed rage and bullying in connection to school shootings.

Ah, I see. Can't be too careful considering how many people are eager to present mass shootings as a white male problem only.

It isnt. The article addresses a form of rage. In this case Black rage÷ explosive rage. White rage = controlled rage.

Norwegian wrote:

QuestionMark wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

QuestionMark wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

They did a research in Finland about the connection between bullying and school shootings:

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

I'm not going to read an article that's titled "white rage". Could you imagine how people would feel if an article about gang violence was titled "black rage"?

'White rage' in this case means rage, not race. Like the article says, its a form of rage. A better term for it would be 'controlled anger'.  Its about repressed rage and bullying in connection to school shootings.

Ah, I see. Can't be too careful considering how many people are eager to present mass shootings as a white male problem only.

It isnt. The article addresses a form of rage. In this case Black rage÷ explosive rage. White rage = controlled rage.

Yes, I acknowledged that. I'm saying my reason for my initial suspicion is because I thought this was another anti-white article, because there are many in circulation. I may not have been entirely clear what I was trying to say there, my apologies.

slippy123 wrote:

What do you guys think about what he says in this interview. I know the consensus around here is that he's not very liked...

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

It's a lot more objective and truthful than hes haters like to argue. I could find views that contradicts Cullens views on the leader- follower- narrative, yet, there are also experts which supports the view. In other words, I dont see anything new in that case. Only, that its debatable to what extent Eric was a leader in the game.

Hes idea of Eric as a sadistic psychopath is also supported by Peter Langman. I also think that Dylan somehow learned to turn hes inner anger outwards, eventually. Wether that was through Harris or not.