Judith Kelly ,DK english teacher says Sue not telling truth about paper

I make no judgements on who is telling the truth as I wasn't there but on A Columbine site when talking about Sue's 20/20 interview, the following is included

That said,I've heard from the family of Judith Kelly,Dylan's creative writing teacher who is the one that received the violent essay mentioned in the O magazine story and again in the 20/20 interview.According to the Kelly's, Judith did tell both Sue and Tom (now divorced) about the essay "at length",despite what Sue claims.
Judith even told investigators as much when they came to interview her on May 4,1999.
You can see her statement in the Columbine report here.
You can find the actual assignment in Dylan's section.
The family insists that Sue's account is just one version of what actually happened.

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

I think both families protected (too much) their kids from getting into trouble, they refused to acknowledge their sons problems....so sad. Personally, I believe Judith Kelly.

In the 11k when Mrs Kelly was interviewed after the massacre she had the same story. That she had shown the paper to his parents and talked at length with them about it

You can find her testimony in the 11k on pg 3438. She wrote a statement on 4/20 and was interviewed on 5/4 and 5/27 where she mentioned this.

I have no doubts Sue and Tom knew about the paper and brushed it off

VERY interesting! As much as I love Sue, this is one of the issues in which she has her head in the sand. She may just choose to believe the narrative which she has been telling, despite what Ms. Kelly says.

ThoughtBox wrote:

VERY interesting! As much as I love Sue, this is one of the issues in which she has her head in the sand. She may just choose to believe the narrative which she has been telling, despite what Ms. Kelly says.

I think Sue does that with many things.I don't think she is deliberately lying but instead is misremembering. If you think about it she went through a highly traumatic experience and the trauma lasted a long time.She even said in her book that she feels that she went insane in a lot of ways for awhile after the shooting.She was also consumed by guilt for a long time and the guilt is still present.
It's understandable that her mind would reconstruct some events in a way that would make it easier to live with.
It does make you wonder if any of her other memories are like that too.
One fairly large inconsistency has come to my mind in the last few days.
Sue said that at first she and Tom didn't want any kind of a funeral for Dylan at all,feeling it was too disrespectful to the victims.But then she talks about realizing Dylan was going to have a funeral in the next few days and picking out an outfit to wear to the funeral before they left the house that night.
Then she explains that one of the reasons she kept her hair appointment the next day was that "I didn't want to look like a scarecrow when I said Goodbye to my son."


That's really got me puzzled.

If i remember correctly sue said she kept the hair appointment because A) it was a standing appointed time that was scheduled once a month or (something like that). B) she was raised with the belief that how you present yourself to the public is important. That its shows respect to whoever you come into contact with if your appearance is nice and well put together. I cant quote from the book but thats the basic gist of it. She is one of those women who you will never see in the grocery store in sweat pants looking like she just rolled out of bed. Oh gee im describing myself now lol.

rockiemontana wrote:

If i remember correctly sue said she kept the hair appointment because A) it was a standing appointed time that was scheduled once a month or (something like that).  B) she was raised with the belief that how you present yourself to the public is important. That its shows respect to whoever you come into contact with if your appearance is nice and well put together.  I cant quote from the book but thats the basic gist of it.  She is one of those women who you will never see in the grocery store in sweat pants looking like she just rolled out of bed. Oh gee im describing myself now lol.

Yes, you are right .Those were two of the reasons Sue gave for keeping her hair appointment.
She goes into quite a bit of detail about the appointment and why she did it as that is something she is still heavily criticized for.
But one of the reasons was indeed that "I didn't want to look like a scarecrow when I said Goodbye to my son." which as I pointed out before seems to be a huge contradiction from her about the funeral.

Sue also mentioned something like she did the hair appointment because in a way it's coping mechanism for her - to just go about your errands like everything's normal, to look good, basically in her mind she's psyching herself out at the same time feeling little to nothing at all, cause that's the best way she could cope or at the least knew how to at that time. I totally get it. Sometimes, you find yourself doing the weirdest things or just going about normally even during a tragedy or finding out someone died. She wasn't going to bawl on the ground and scream at everyone to leave her premises, she just went on about her life. It doesn't mean she wasn't mourning or in pain. Her coping reminds me of my mother. So with this method, it's very safe to say half the time she is and still is in denial and she HERSELF too has admitted that.

PaintItBlack wrote:

ThoughtBox wrote:

VERY interesting! As much as I love Sue, this is one of the issues in which she has her head in the sand. She may just choose to believe the narrative which she has been telling, despite what Ms. Kelly says.

I think Sue does that with many things.I don't think she is deliberately lying but instead is misremembering.

Misremembering?  Sue Klebold's description in the book is in perfect agreement with Kelly's description.

Sue Klebold devotes an entire page to all the comments the teacher had about the essay. She recounts a lot of them word for word.  

As Sue represents it, they have a long and detailed conversation about it, talking about the content of the essay, what they should do about it, how they plan to involve the counselor, how the plan to follow up with Dylan. She says the teacher compared it to Eric's essay.  Said it was "disturbing," "dark," and "had no humor in it at all." Those are all direct quotes from the teacher. At length.

Sue represents the conversation as a long one that went into great detail about the paper.  She doesn't ignore it at all.

Did you read the same book I did?

lasttrain wrote:

PaintItBlack wrote:

ThoughtBox wrote:

VERY interesting! As much as I love Sue, this is one of the issues in which she has her head in the sand. She may just choose to believe the narrative which she has been telling, despite what Ms. Kelly says.

I think Sue does that with many things.I don't think she is deliberately lying but instead is misremembering.

Misremembering?  Sue Klebold's description in the book is in perfect agreement with Kelly's description.

Sue Klebold devotes an entire page to all the comments the teacher had about the essay. She recounts a lot of them word for word.  

As Sue represents it, they have a long and detailed conversation about it, talking about the content of the essay, what they should do about it, how they plan to involve the counselor, how the plan to follow up with Dylan. She says the teacher compared it to Eric's essay.  Said it was "disturbing," "dark," and "had no humor in it at all." Those are all direct quotes from the teacher. At length.

Sue represents the conversation as a long one that went into great detail about the paper.  She doesn't ignore it at all.

Did you read the same book I did?

It might be a tv interview that I am remembering, but anyway in it Sue described that the teacher gave the counselor the paper and said that if anything was concerning to them they would call her and that they never called her so she didn't think it was a big deal. And that she asked Dylan to see it but he never showed it to her. She never mentioned the long talk with the teacher about the paper. I am not saying she did or didn't talk to the teacher about the paper at all. But she certainly did not press Dylan as hard about the paper as she should have considering this teacher reads a ton of papers year after year and has probably seen it all but saw enough alarm in this paper to mention it at all.

Lizpuff wrote:

 I am not saying she did or didn't talk to the teacher about the paper at all.  But she certainly did not press Dylan as hard about the paper as she should have considering this teacher reads a ton of papers year after year and has probably seen it all but saw enough alarm in this paper to mention it at all.

Obviously, given that her son was a homicidal maniac who went on to murder several of his classmates, she did not press him as hard as she should have about the paper.

But that is not the issue here.  The issue here is, "Has Sue Klebold downplayed the teacher's concern about the paper?"

And the answer is absolutely not.  Sue notes that the teacher talked about it at length at a meeting.  Said it was "disturbing" or "shocking." Said it was extreme even compared to Eric's.  Mentioned going to a guidance counselor.  Told them to confront Dylan about it.

Maybe in a TV interview Sue Klebold did not recap word-for-word an hour-long meeting.  But in her book she is explicit that the teacher sounded the alarm loud and clear and Sue ignored the warning because she "never considered that the paper could be a reflection of deeply seated problems" (226).

Nowhere does she put the blame on the teacher or claim the teacher reacted tepidly to the paper.

Some of you have a very distorted view of Sue Klebold's book that does not match her words at all.

Yes, I did read the same book lasttrain.
Sue said she never knew the exact content of the paper, only that the teacher found it disturbing and said she sent it a school counselor.She said they were told the counselor would call them if they thought there was a serious problem that needed to be addressed but they never got a call.
They asked Dylan twice to see the paper, once he said he didn't have it,the next time they demanded to see it that evening when he got home but by that night both parents had forgotten about it.
Judith Kelly's family is saying she told them about the paper at length and that Sue's version of events she has told is not what actually happened.Judith Kelly claims the events of the meeting one way, Sue claims a different version of events.I am not sure what is confusing about that.

PaintItBlack wrote:

Judith Kelly's family is saying she told them about the paper at length and that Sue's version of events she has told is not what actually happened.Judith Kelly claims the events of the meeting one way, Sue claims a different version of events.I am not sure what is confusing about that.

There is nothing confusing about it.  It's just factually incorrect.  Sue also says that Kelly told them about the paper at length.  Sue Klebold recounts a long conversation about it.  She quotes multiple statements from the teacher.  She describes a lengthy conversation.  It goes over a few pages in the book.

How could Kelly or anyone else say that Sue Klebold downplayed the conversation when Sue Klebold offers a long account of the conversation and vindicates the teacher's concerns?  That is mind-boggling to me that someone could make that criticism.

lasttrain wrote:

PaintItBlack wrote:

Judith Kelly's family is saying she told them about the paper at length and that Sue's version of events she has told is not what actually happened.Judith Kelly claims the events of the meeting one way, Sue claims a different version of events.I am not sure what is confusing about that.

There is nothing confusing about it.  It's just factually incorrect.  Sue also says that Kelly told them about the paper at length.  Sue Klebold recounts a long conversation about it.  She quotes multiple statements from the teacher.  She describes a lengthy conversation.  It goes over a few pages in the book.

How could Kelly or anyone else say that Sue Klebold downplayed the conversation when Sue Klebold offers a long account of the conversation and vindicates the teacher's concerns?  That is mind-boggling to me that someone could make that criticism.

Okay, than why does the Kelly family say that Sue's version of events is not true?Why did they make a point to speak out about this publicly? They were the ones who brought this issue up,not me.
So if you are upset about this, contact them.

PaintItBlack wrote:

lasttrain wrote:

PaintItBlack wrote:

Judith Kelly's family is saying she told them about the paper at length and that Sue's version of events she has told is not what actually happened.Judith Kelly claims the events of the meeting one way, Sue claims a different version of events.I am not sure what is confusing about that.

There is nothing confusing about it.  It's just factually incorrect.  Sue also says that Kelly told them about the paper at length.  Sue Klebold recounts a long conversation about it.  She quotes multiple statements from the teacher.  She describes a lengthy conversation.  It goes over a few pages in the book.

How could Kelly or anyone else say that Sue Klebold downplayed the conversation when Sue Klebold offers a long account of the conversation and vindicates the teacher's concerns?  That is mind-boggling to me that someone could make that criticism.

Okay, than why does the Kelly family say that Sue's version of events is not true?Why did they make a point to speak out about this publicly? They were the ones who brought this issue up,not me.
So if you are upset about this, contact them.

Maybe because they also failed to read her book accurately?

lasttrain wrote:

PaintItBlack wrote:

lasttrain wrote:

PaintItBlack wrote:

Judith Kelly's family is saying she told them about the paper at length and that Sue's version of events she has told is not what actually happened.Judith Kelly claims the events of the meeting one way, Sue claims a different version of events.I am not sure what is confusing about that.

There is nothing confusing about it.  It's just factually incorrect.  Sue also says that Kelly told them about the paper at length.  Sue Klebold recounts a long conversation about it.  She quotes multiple statements from the teacher.  She describes a lengthy conversation.  It goes over a few pages in the book.

How could Kelly or anyone else say that Sue Klebold downplayed the conversation when Sue Klebold offers a long account of the conversation and vindicates the teacher's concerns?  That is mind-boggling to me that someone could make that criticism.

Okay, than why does the Kelly family say that Sue's version of events is not true?Why did they make a point to speak out about this publicly? They were the ones who brought this issue up,not me.
So if you are upset about this, contact them.

Maybe because they also failed to read her book accurately?  

I don't know about that.Judith Kelly was one of the participants in the event.Sounds to me like the family is registering a sincere objection.