Witnesses re-interviewed?

We all know the 11k was filled with misinformation, fabrications, kids repeating things they had only heard about and didn't see or hear for themselves,  etc. Everyone knows how fast info travels in a school.  The fact many people would hear something and then decided to parrot it back and incorporate it into their own Columbine experience is just one of the reasons why the case was so bogged down with different conspiracy theories.

I wonder what would have changed in their stories if these same people had been interviewed again several years after the fact? After they had time to settle things in their own mind, to go over and over everything that happened that day, while weeding out things they didn't see or hear or experience first hand. More importantly to have possibly outgrown the "I need to repeat this and say it happened to me to make me seem more relevant to what happened" issue?

Great question. I don’t know if Yumeko is still around, it would be interesting to see what her opinion would be.

Also when I went to the speaker series in Denver I got the vibe that people were finding out new information even up to a year ago. Something about Sue’s comment when she said Nate told her about the guns and how Dylan was afraid that Eric would hurt him if anyone found out. She said that was new info. The interviewer didn’t really follow up on it though.

Plus there’s less pressure to build a narrative so they might be able to speak more freely. There may be less emotion as well. Most of the interviews took place pretty soon after correct?

Screamingophelia wrote:

Great question. I don’t know if Yumeko is still around, it would be interesting to see what her opinion would be.

Also when I went to the speaker series in Denver I got the vibe that people were finding out new information even up to a year ago. Something about Sue’s  comment when she said Nate told her about the guns and how Dylan was afraid that Eric would hurt him if anyone found out. She said that was new info.  The interviewer didn’t really follow up on it though.

Plus there’s less pressure to build a narrative so they might be able to speak more freely. There may be less emotion as well. Most of the interviews took place pretty soon after correct?

I think the interviews were done quickly afterwards, or as fast as JeffCo could manage them. I also wonder if the fact SO many people had to be interviewed if they were rushed through for the most part?

Also it sucks that the interviewer didn't follow up on that!

While I think a lot of the interviews could be better, I think a ton would be horrible. Over the years facts and memories are clouded. People hear other interviews, learn the facts of what happened and their narratives change.

I think quite a few would have very different interviews years after the fact and I don't think all would be more accurate

Lizpuff wrote:

While I think a lot of the interviews could be better, I think a ton would be horrible.  Over the years facts and memories are clouded.  People hear other interviews, learn the facts of what happened and their narratives change.  

I think quite a few would have very different interviews years after the fact and I don't think all would be more accurate

Agreed, although it would still be interesting to see if and how their recollection of what happened had changed with the passage of time.

I'm still here.

Yumeko-chan wrote:

I'm still here.

Hi Yumeko!

Yumeko-chan wrote:

I'm still here.

I watched all of your videos on your experience and liked them very much. I have to say you don't fit the mold of the typical witness. You seem to still remember as if it was yesterda

Yumeko-chan wrote:

I'm still here.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]   HI! Not sure how I missed you commenting on this. I have watched your Youtube Columbine Series several times.  

If you don't mind me asking, would you say over the years the things you saw/heard have dimmed or gotten clearer? If so what has faded and what still seems vivid?

Did you ever have anything just pop into your head that you had forgotten or your mind simply buried away and think "WTH did that come from?"

Did you remember anything later on that you wish you had recalled when you were first interviewed? Or did you ever read other library survivors reports and think "That didn't happen like that" or "That was never said" etc?

We all know the huge debate with the mix up between Cassie or Val being asked about their belief in God. Is there anything else that stands out in your mind as being false to how you remember that day?

Also just wanting to say that I would completely understand if you don't respond.  

Screamingophelia wrote:

Plus there’s less pressure to build a narrative so they might be able to speak more freely.

False narratives were constructed fairly quickly from motives to the actual victims. Later interviews would've simply reinforced those narratives.

It's better to get as much info as possible soon after the crime.

Look at what happened with Rachel. She was essentially turned into a person that never existed, and it sticks to this day. The Cassie narrative died down a lot over the years but that narrative was almost as bad.

she has already said what she saw and why she was posting

JP wrote:

she has already said what she saw and why she was posting

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  Eh? Was this directed towards me or just another of your one liners?

Either way, I am well aware Amanda has recalled the events she lived through countless times over the past 19 years. I am also aware she was likely just saying that she was indeed still around.  

I was simply going out on a limb in small hopes she would like to answer the questions I posted.