What went wrong within the Columbine case? Thoughts?

Hello! I would like to know what you think went wrong with the columbine case. I remember hearing of issues surrounding the investigation and reporting of the case, but can never find them or remember them...

So I am making this topic for any philosophical, psychological, criminological, ethical, legal and cultural issues with any aspect of the case.

Anything surrounding the police, the press, the public or legal systems.

(sorry if this topic already exists, I couldn't find one purely to discuss any and all issues, please point me in the right direction if there is)

I am not sure if there is a specific thread for this more so just many threads discussing various aspects but in my opinion there are so many issues.

Prior to anything, the fact that the cops did not try harder to locate Eric's website, no one seemed to listen to the Browns, no one in Eric's family followed up on the call about the ammunition, none of their friends/acquaintances reported anything with the guns, Robyn buying the guns for them, Both Dr Albert and the therapists involved with Diversion just passing the boys along, and the families not inspecting the rooms.

During the massacre how the cops acted.... Now I know this is just how it was back then but I still think that it could have been handled better

And after, if you read the 11k it is just a mess. Facts handled wrong, leads not followed up, typos creating all kinds of evidence errors, the press cover with the cops holding the guns was poor taste, how they handled the bodies, contacting the parents, how they handled evidence and the release of that evidence or lack thereof... I could go on and on.

The 11k isn't useful?

Reporters making the boys famous worldwide by posting their photos and mentioning their choice of weapons and clothes could be considered a mistake. An ABC News investigation in 2014 found that in the 14 years after Columbine, at least 17 school shooters - and 36 other students who threatened rampages that were averted - directly cited the Columbine shooting or its perpetrators as partial motivation for the attack. So as a result of glamorizing the massacre, you've now got copycats running around.

A better idea would've been to refer to them as "Boy A" and "Boy B", with no photos or description. So you've got no worldwide fame, no copycats, no girls on Tumblr talking about how "hot" they are. Mentioning their names also exposed their grieving families to unwanted attention.

sympathyforEandD wrote:

A better idea would've been to refer to them as "Boy A" and "Boy B", with no photos or description.

That's a terrible fucking idea. For starters any kind of knowledge or information we'd be able to gleam from the case and use to learn how to stop the next potential mass shooter would be lost to time. Secondly, refusing to report on a perpetrators name demonstrably does not reduce imitators or people seeking to commit similar crimes - China deliberately censors the names and photographs of mass murderers and this has not resulted in any reduction in the number of mass murders that happen in China.

Even if this was the right way to go (it's not), I think censoring things, no matter what they are or what potential damage it could do if it remains uncensored, is horrifically immoral. Information and ideas deserve to be free and open to access.

Cops didn't do their job, the deceased victims and evidence were tossed around like dirt, the shooters have batshit crazy fangirls. I could go on

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] It's actually somewhat good that they reported on their weapon choice because it resulted in copycats using the same sh!tty guns and thus killing fewer people than if they used proper firearms.
Their clothes are also very far away from being the best in a tactical sense.
The basement tapes also should've been released because I bet that their advice was Anarchist Cookbook tier and that the lack of speculation around the tapes after their release would possibly decrease the copycat numbers, although the latter might not apply nowadays because of how long the basement tapes have been kept hidden (or destroyed).

Everyone just thought of the boys as psychopaths or depressed. They were suffering for acceptance. The cops didn’t do anything after discovering the evidence of what looked like Eric making pipe bombs. They should have done more and investigated more. The boys were arrested and there is evidence of creating pipe bombs and that doesn’t concern the police that something bad could happen. I wish I could have been an officer to investigate more in order to prevent this because the police were useless throughout their “investigation.”

andthentherewas1 wrote:

The 11k isn't useful?

It is useful I didn't say that. But it is also riddled with typos, mistakes, racist remarks and other non useful information. If you don't know the actual facts you could get led down the wrong path with some of that information ala Brenda Parker

Lizpuff wrote:

andthentherewas1 wrote:

The 11k isn't useful?

It is useful I didn't say that. But it is also riddled with typos, mistakes, racist remarks and other non useful information. If you don't know the actual facts you could get led down the wrong path with some of that information ala Brenda Parker

Yup agreed its useful but you have to take it for what it's worth. A lot of it is witness testimony and as we all know humans make notoriously unreliable witnesses. Hence DNA evidence exonerating so many convicted criminals that were convicted based on witness testimony and circumstantial evidence

Lizpuff wrote:

I am not sure if there is a specific thread for this more so just many threads discussing various aspects but in my opinion there are so many issues.

Prior to anything, the fact that the cops did not try harder to locate Eric's website, no one seemed to listen to the Browns, no one in Eric's family followed up on the call about the ammunition, none of their friends/acquaintances reported anything with the guns, Robyn buying the guns for them, Both Dr Albert and the therapists involved with Diversion just passing the boys along, and the families not inspecting the rooms.

During the massacre how the cops acted.... Now I know this is just how it was back then but I still think that it could have been handled better

And after, if you read the 11k it is just a mess.  Facts handled wrong, leads not followed up, typos creating all kinds of evidence errors, the press cover with the cops holding the guns was poor taste, how they handled the bodies, contacting the parents, how they handled evidence and the release of that evidence or lack thereof... I could go on and on.

This is some of the issues I was thinking of! If you can find the links to direct to any of the threads it would be useful! I just couldn't find any when trying to search.

I agree that the policies just weren't in place then for the scale of the shooting, which has led to current modern day advances in the area.

I've read part of the 11K and noticed the spelling errors as well as wrong facts. Is how they contacted parents and handled evidence also mentioned in the 11K or separately? (its such a big document, I unfortunately never find the time to go through more of it!).

Kev7382 wrote:

Lizpuff wrote:

andthentherewas1 wrote:

The 11k isn't useful?

It is useful I didn't say that.  But it is also riddled with typos, mistakes, racist remarks and other non useful information.  If you don't know the actual facts you could get led down the wrong path with some of that information ala Brenda Parker

Yup agreed its useful but you have to take it for what it's worth.  A lot of it is witness testimony and as we all know humans make notoriously unreliable witnesses.  Hence DNA evidence exonerating so many convicted criminals that were convicted based on witness testimony and circumstantial evidence

I have seen in the witness testimony that the witnesses often confuse who was who and mistake the names of the boys and the police swap them and get the facts wrong there.

jodie-b wrote:

Kev7382 wrote:

Lizpuff wrote:

andthentherewas1 wrote:

The 11k isn't useful?

It is useful I didn't say that.  But it is also riddled with typos, mistakes, racist remarks and other non useful information.  If you don't know the actual facts you could get led down the wrong path with some of that information ala Brenda Parker

Yup agreed its useful but you have to take it for what it's worth.  A lot of it is witness testimony and as we all know humans make notoriously unreliable witnesses.  Hence DNA evidence exonerating so many convicted criminals that were convicted based on witness testimony and circumstantial evidence

I have seen in the witness testimony that the witnesses often confuse who was who and mistake the names of the boys and the police swap them and get the facts wrong there.

Yes and blame Perry instead.

Try this website for the 11k. Breaks it down so you can find things:https://web.archive.org/web/20120117213015/http://evanlong.net/columbine/columbine-shooting-government-document-library/

Lizpuff wrote:

jodie-b wrote:

Kev7382 wrote:

Lizpuff wrote:

andthentherewas1 wrote:

The 11k isn't useful?

It is useful I didn't say that.  But it is also riddled with typos, mistakes, racist remarks and other non useful information.  If you don't know the actual facts you could get led down the wrong path with some of that information ala Brenda Parker

Yup agreed its useful but you have to take it for what it's worth.  A lot of it is witness testimony and as we all know humans make notoriously unreliable witnesses.  Hence DNA evidence exonerating so many convicted criminals that were convicted based on witness testimony and circumstantial evidence

I have seen in the witness testimony that the witnesses often confuse who was who and mistake the names of the boys and the police swap them and get the facts wrong there.

Yes and blame Perry instead.  

Try this website for the 11k. Breaks it down so you can find things:https://web.archive.org/web/20120117213015/http://evanlong.net/columbine/columbine-shooting-government-document-library/

People were so mean about the way Robert Perry looked.

Screamingophelia wrote:

Lizpuff wrote:

jodie-b wrote:

Kev7382 wrote:

Lizpuff wrote:

andthentherewas1 wrote:

The 11k isn't useful?

It is useful I didn't say that.  But it is also riddled with typos, mistakes, racist remarks and other non useful information.  If you don't know the actual facts you could get led down the wrong path with some of that information ala Brenda Parker

Yup agreed its useful but you have to take it for what it's worth.  A lot of it is witness testimony and as we all know humans make notoriously unreliable witnesses.  Hence DNA evidence exonerating so many convicted criminals that were convicted based on witness testimony and circumstantial evidence

I have seen in the witness testimony that the witnesses often confuse who was who and mistake the names of the boys and the police swap them and get the facts wrong there.

Yes and blame Perry instead.  

Try this website for the 11k. Breaks it down so you can find things:https://web.archive.org/web/20120117213015/http://evanlong.net/columbine/columbine-shooting-government-document-library/

People were  so mean about the way Robert Perry  looked.

Oh I know! I very much hope he never read it but I am sure he has. I thought he was ordinary enough looking. Not horribly ugly or anything they said

Lizpuff wrote:

Screamingophelia wrote:

Lizpuff wrote:

jodie-b wrote:

Kev7382 wrote:

Lizpuff wrote:

andthentherewas1 wrote:

The 11k isn't useful?

It is useful I didn't say that.  But it is also riddled with typos, mistakes, racist remarks and other non useful information.  If you don't know the actual facts you could get led down the wrong path with some of that information ala Brenda Parker

Yup agreed its useful but you have to take it for what it's worth.  A lot of it is witness testimony and as we all know humans make notoriously unreliable witnesses.  Hence DNA evidence exonerating so many convicted criminals that were convicted based on witness testimony and circumstantial evidence

I have seen in the witness testimony that the witnesses often confuse who was who and mistake the names of the boys and the police swap them and get the facts wrong there.

Yes and blame Perry instead.  

Try this website for the 11k. Breaks it down so you can find things:https://web.archive.org/web/20120117213015/http://evanlong.net/columbine/columbine-shooting-government-document-library/

People were  so mean about the way Robert Perry  looked.

Oh I know!  I very much hope he never read it but I am sure he has.  I thought he was ordinary enough looking.  Not horribly ugly or anything they said

And on top of that they thought Robert was the one doing the shooting because they mistook him for Dylan. Even though I don’t think they looked alike...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I also don't see the similarity between Robert Perry and Dylan... maybe the nose?

He had long hair. Some of the witnesses thought the shooter had long brown hair like Perry. He was also tall and lanky like Dylan. He did wear a trenchcoat sometimes as well

As far as the acne, Dylan always seemed to have a clear face so IDK where that came from

jodie-b wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I also don't see the similarity between Robert Perry and Dylan... maybe the nose?

Perhaps, and a similar hairstyle? But Dylan was a lot I don’t know how to explain he looks a little older and he had better skin.

Say what you will but they had really good skin for being teenagers

Lizpuff wrote:

He had long hair.  Some of the witnesses thought the shooter had long brown hair like Perry.  He was also tall and lanky like Dylan.  He did wear a trenchcoat sometimes as well

As far as the acne, Dylan always seemed to have a clear face so IDK where that came from

As you were typing this I was typing my response and they’re almost identical lol

Screamingophelia wrote:

Lizpuff wrote:

He had long hair.  Some of the witnesses thought the shooter had long brown hair like Perry.  He was also tall and lanky like Dylan.  He did wear a trenchcoat sometimes as well

As far as the acne, Dylan always seemed to have a clear face so IDK where that came from

As you were typing this I was typing my response and they’re almost identical lol

Great minds and all....

Have to bite my tongue not to say "Well Dylan didn't get a girlfriend and the bombs failed."

I'm no investigator and it takes quite a few inferences to say what went wrong. Certainly, pre-massacre, not checking their rooms, not being more internet savvy to know about Eric's website, not checking wtf the gunstore meant by clips, not knowing what foreshadowing looks like, not filing the search warrant, the psychologists noticing nothing, etc

And certainly the media did something wrong. They were banking on the media going crazy a la NBK, and they were proven right. Inclined to agree with Sympathy, though QuestionMark brings up interesting points. I do agree with QuestionMark about censorship to a degree. If legislation is passed because of an event like this, say, I would think at the least then the investigators have no business not releasing every detail.

At the same time, it seems undeniable the huge media coverage is why some of the copycats, and it seems like several elements play into it, e. g. two shooters making it so one has to say their names when distinguishing the actions of one from the other.  I tend to think the real reason the media freaked out was because of the Nazi stuff and 4/20, and because of taunting Isaiah. Two shooters, the number of casualties etc as well, but that made it not just a tragedy, but seditious. I even wonder if the "5th camera" does not exist because in the shot was that crappy multicultural America mural behind the stairs with MLK and Einstein. So, triggered university-educated journalists would be another thing that went wrong.

Other things require more guess-work and ones interpretation of the massacre. The police not entering the building is of course a big one, but I assume the OP is asking why. Tough question. I have a hard time believing it was simply because of protocol at the time or confusion about the number of shooters. I lean towards it being scared by the bombs. Even with all the "active shooter" protocols today, I'm not sure what the protocols are if the shooter could roll a grenade into your diamond formation, or the doors will explode if you open them.

On the CNN CD released by Jeffco pretty shortly after the massacre, they mention that the people who defused the diversionary devices relayed to the school the possibility of motion detectors. That's a weird thing to say. For one, it just doesn't seem like any of the bombs were motion activated rather than time activated. For two, that is never mentioned when talking about the cops staying outside, or at least I haven't seen it elsewhere. It seems possible to read that as an excuse for not entering, either lying and making the bombs seem scarier to justify their not entering, or being truthful and saying they were afraid of their entering the school triggering devices. I've also read before that the fire truck by Rachel and Richard was not just to provide cover to gunfire while retrieving their bodies, but to take the brunt of the explosion if there was one when they went in the west entrance. So, again, a seeming reference to motion activated devices being a worry of police, yet rarely if ever mentioned as the reason they stood outside.

It's also been mentioned how the cops did not enter the library despite listening to the 911 call and having an open door. Well, the gunmen kept saying the library was going to explode, and the witnesses in there said they entered with confidence. Perhaps the cops feared the library exploding if they entered, and perhaps that was even the plan.

Another thing to wonder about is the balaclavas. At least Eric had one, and in one version of the plans said he would be wearing it at the start, and Patti Nielson seems to say who shot her, which was probably Eric, was wearing something on his head like a beret, which doesn't seem like Dylan's cap. Maybe if they started the shooting with those on, the police were fooled into thinking it was some kind of Iran hostage situation.

Then of course the usual story is that multiple guns and taking off their trench coats and police returning fire and the janitor on the roof confused witnesses and cops as to how many gunmen there were.

I think the "plan B" and "shooting from the cars" is one of the more pernicious myths. I suspect it's two things. One is the one usually given, saying their cars flanked the cafeteria, but really only Eric's was near the south entrance, while Dylan was more or less in the middle of the senior parking lot. It could probably hurt them on the stairs if he actually flanked the cafeteria. The other bit is the two different timelines written out by Dylan, one in his notebook and the other in Eric's day planner. It doesn't seem like they stuck to either rigidly. They seemed to assume Eric's day planner having to "wait near cars" was the plan as far as where to shoot, but it seems like Dylan's notebook with "go to outside hill" was what they did. Though there's always the possibility the investigators interpretation has to do with tapes we never saw.

Another one is Eric as leader and Dylan as follower. Something else to consider: Eric's journal was at least sometimes written for an audience (like when he gets the guns, he addresses an audience), we know more about his online footprint than Dylan's, and he would also write things like the importance of confusing the hell out of the enemy. Also have to wonder if Eric blowing his face off and Dylan's remaining relatively intact has anything to do with Eric being seen as the evil monster.  However it seems Dylan came up with the idea, never apologized, was more vocal, was the one more prepared to stab people, and may have been the bomb technician between them. He was the sound engineer, he checks on the bombs from the outside, he goes up close to them on the CCTV inside, his car bomb was the one the Sheriff said was set to explode the gas tank, and his car bomb included 8 pipe bombs or something like that to Eric's one.

Would also say what was said and where in the library that wasn't said directly to someone is so often neglected. It's usually depicted as Eric but most of it was Dylan as above. It's usually depicted as while they are standing at the entrance but they were moving around, etc. As above, that they said the library was going to explode is often left out, and I think it's at the very least a curiosity for the usual interpretation that "they started shooting because they realized the bombs had failed, but still started shooting outside for some reason."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I don't think I had heard about JeffCo saying the bombs were motion activated before. This is definitely an interesting point! If this is genuinely what they believed it could go on to explain a fair bit of their actions on that day. However I do agree with what was said about maybe this was a way of covering their tracks so to say. Making the bombs seem scarier to justify their actions.

Do you think the tapes they watched went on to answer these questions about the case that so many of us have? Hence why we are still speculating to this day?

I'm also intrigued as to what you think the interpretation of the case is? You refer to them starting to shoot because they realise the bombs failed as the "usual interpretation". Just curious about what you think?

QuestionMark wrote:

sympathyforEandD wrote:

A better idea would've been to refer to them as "Boy A" and "Boy B", with no photos or description.

That's a terrible fucking idea. For starters any kind of knowledge or information we'd be able to gleam from the case and use to learn how to stop the next potential mass shooter would be lost to time. Secondly, refusing to report on a perpetrators name demonstrably does not reduce imitators or people seeking to commit similar crimes - China deliberately censors the names and photographs of mass murderers and this has not resulted in any reduction in the number of mass murders that happen in China.

Even if this was the right way to go (it's not), I think censoring things, no matter what they are or what potential damage it could do if it remains uncensored, is horrifically immoral. Information and ideas deserve to be free and open to access.

The media did lend itself to glamorizing Eric and Dylan... the Time Magazine cover was tone deaf to say the least. Hell even Cullen's book glamorizes Eric in a way.

However I do agree with QuestionMark.

I find it funny how people want to do no notoriety with older cases. The cats out of the bag. Plus you take a book like Brooks's or Sue's they are not going to write 'when my friend who is a mass murderer came over for spaghetti..."

jodie-b wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I don't think I had heard about JeffCo saying the bombs were motion activated before. This is definitely an interesting point! If this is genuinely what they believed it could go on to explain a fair bit of their actions on that day. However I do agree with what was said about maybe this was a way of covering their tracks so to say. Making the bombs seem scarier to justify their actions.

Do you think the tapes they watched went on to answer these questions about the case that so many of us have? Hence why we are still speculating to this day?

I'm also intrigued as to what you think the interpretation of the case is? You refer to them starting to shoot because they realise the bombs failed as the "usual interpretation". Just curious about what you think?

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

"The examination of the diversionary devices by bomb technicians provided immediate critical information about the sophistication of the devices and the possibility of motion activators attached to the bombs.  That information was relayed to the command post, the SWAT teams and the bomb technicians responding to the scene at the high school."

Too many years since first saw that and went "huh?" and wondered whether it was true, as Eric did mention 'trip bombs' or whatever, or if it was Jeffco being Jeffco. "Possibility" is odd.

I tend to think one way or another the bombs explain the cops actions that day more than old protocols or confusion. There was also much talk from e. g. Sheriff Stone talking about not risking losing officers, and I don't think they mean in a gunfight.

Hard to say about the tapes. It doesn't seem like those who did see the tapes have better answers, though I am sure insights could be gleaned from them. Even those who saw the tapes seem to say they had no plan B, yet buy the orthodox plan B story, which was my main point. Essentially covering my bases there. Maybe some secret evidence like what was on the tapes led them to believe in the "shooting from the parking lot" story, but I don't think so. Even if it did, I think they changed those plans before the day came.

But for an example where the tapes may give insight where without them we are left asking questions, some have said on the tapes they mentioned they first considered attacking their place of work, Blackjack Pizza. So, perhaps more than in effect Columbine marks the transition from workplace "going postal" violence to school violence. This to me suggests at least the possibility that they first hit upon attacking the school simply because of the chance for mass casualties and it being somewhere with which they were familiar, and not because of the ire for being shoved against lockers or the other 'hating the school' interpretations.

Not to ridicule those like Randy Brown who will say something along the lines of "if it was about cops, they could've shot up the police station; if it was about jocks, they could've shot shot up the gym. They shot up the school, they must have hated the school," but it strikes me as all too possible that the response should be "dude they just wanted as many kills as they could get and they were teenagers, the school cafeteria was the most they could get." Consider Eric's introduction in his Nazi paper about a stadium full of corpses. If they had keys to a sports stadium or whatever, I'm sure they would have done it there. Any kind of "we're destroying the system of indoctrination, we're gonna start a revolution of outcasts in schools" could easily have been hit upon after the decision to attack the school for other, simpler reasons.

This post is already too long and probably 3/4ths of my posts and indeed my reason for joining the forum are about my rejecting the "plan B" narrative and seeing if others can challenge me on it. But, since you asked:

The usual interpretation is that they were going to shoot from the parking lot and "triangulate", advancing from where they parked their cars towards the exits after the bombs went off. Then, completely inexplicably, when they knew the bombs failed, they moved to "plan B" and went to the staircase, and just as inexplicably, began shooting. And all of this in 2 minutes, and while admitting they were supremely confident and had no plan B.

Those a bit more perceptive will say they never planned on shooting from the parking lot to "triangulate", but planned to shoot from the stairs, which is what the evidence suggests. They started shooting at the top of the stairs is a fact, all else is speculation or inference at best. No witnesses say they stood by their cars waiting for the bombs or anything like that. On the contrary they say they were waiting at the top of the stairs.  But, they still buy the plan B narrative. Shooting from the stairs after the bombs go off is plan A, and shooting from the stairs after the bombs fail is plan B.

I don't buy that either. I think there was no plan B and I don't think ever had to go to a plan B. The inferences I make given the facts have me compelled to say they started shooting because they thought the bombs were about to explode. In brief, that's my interpretation. Stop here to avoid tl;dr

I never could get my head around the plan B narrative, but accepted it anyway. What really started me questioning it is realizing that they said so many times in the library that the bombs were going to explode. So, they hadn't given up on the bombs, and my view of the library massacre is also different than usual; they thought everybody in there and probably including themselves was going to die in the bomb blast. That was enough for me to say plan B is false, but once I accepted that, I don't think that's close to the best reason to reject it.

Shooting from the parking lot makes no sense:
1) The bombs were probably going to send glass and flame into the parking lot.
2) If people ran the other direction, up the cafeteria stairs rather than out the cafeteria, they would have nobody to shoot.
3) The cars were set to explode. While they were suicidal and the cars were timed to explode later, I doubt they'd risk an earlier explosion affecting their ability to shoot fleeing students.
4) The "triangulation" theory acts like the south exit by Eric's car was a cafeteria exit, but you'd have to go up the cafeteria stairs and hang a right.

The top of the stairs make more sense:
1) They were shielded from the blast.
2) If one of them walked to the bottom of the stairs (as Dylan did) after the bombs went off, they could shoot people fleeing no matter which direction they ran.
3) They were not near the cars.
4) Plus the benefit of the high ground on the stairs.

The plan B narrative itself makes no sense.
1) Two minutes. They planned this grandiose murder spree, they planned for months to a year, they fantasized with books and movies and music and video games, their "masterpiece", and then they give up on the bombs, the main focus of the plan, in two minutes (if that) and change course.
2) They start shooting outside. Yet supposedly they knew the bombs failed. There's maybe a dozen people outside to shoot, while they know the cafeteria is full of people.
3) Dylan checked on the bombs. Once Dylan descends the stairs, he enters the cafeteria, and most infer it was to check on the bombs. But they have already started shooting, and they are supposed to have started shooting because they accepted the bombs failed.  If they have accepted the bombs failed, there's nothing to check.

Both e. g. Cullen and Krabbe say the time bombs were not to-the-minute precise. Others will argue with them, and say that's the point of time bombs. But they point out these were analog clocks, not digital. "Setting it to 11:17" amounts to "setting it between the 3 and the 4", i. e. before 11:20. And supposedly they started shooting at 11:19. So, makes a lot of sense given my interpretation. Cullen believes the parking lot, and Krabbe believes the stairs, though both accept plan B.

Since they were shielded from the blast by being up on the stairs, they also could not see the cafeteria to note the bombs had failed. One can rightly counter that they should have heard them, and for that reason I think when they began shooting they probably thought they were about to explode, rather than exploded already. However, given the above, I think their thinking they had exploded already is more likely than thinking they failed. One can also mention that even if they planned to shoot if the bombs failed, they would have at least made sure to look before writing off the bombs.

Thus I think Dylan checks on the bombs once he descends the stairs and it comes into view, because he thought in the minute or so since they began shooting that they would or had gone off. I would point to his descending the cafeteria stairs on the CCTV, when Eric makes his gesture. Dylan seems focused on what is in front of him at first, only later turning his head to look.

So, I think it went something like this. Plan was to wait for the bombs to go off at the top of the stairs Bombs are supposed to go off at 11:20 at the latest. Dylan, perhaps since he came up with NBK, was to go to the bottom of the stairs and shoot at the far cafeteria exits with the TEC-9, the closest thing they had to Doom's "chain gun" and the "AB-10" Eric talks about the most, i. e. what I think in their minds was their best gun.  Eric could shoot down at the near exit or anybody else.

This would go on for a while until people turned around and ran up the cafeteria stairs, then Dylan could go back up the stairs, and Eric and Dylan could cut off their escape by entering the west entrance. People learn things, eventually they would stop running out in the parking lot. Hence the parking lot theory is crap. The same thing would presumably happen again. People dying and eventually learning to turn around. It would probably take longer this time around to realize now running into the parking lot is a good idea, that the shooters are inside and met if you run up the cafeteria stairs. For these people, the car bombs are waiting.

Dylan mentions on the tapes  something like "It will be the most nerve racking fifteen minutes of my life, after the bombs are set and we're waiting to charge through the school". So, something was supposed to happen for 15 minutes between the bombs and entering the school, and something nerve racking about entering the school, and something such that Dylan and not Eric is talking about it. Though of course Dylan doesn't say what he is talking about, I suspect he's being a bit coy, and no doubt there was some fear the tapes could be discovered before 4/20.

My best guess is they estimated 15 minutes for shooting the people fleeing from the cafeteria initially before they turn around. When they entered the west entrance and cut off their escape, they'd be a lot closer to the people than when outside. They'd spend a lot of ammo presumably while outside, maybe too much. Dylan is the one who mentions stabbing people in the library, and wrote the report on Charles Manson. Maybe this is where they would use their knives. When Dylan checks on the bombs and people are running back up the stairs, he simply smirks and goes to tell Eric. Then he or Eric say this is awesome.

Add another 15 minutes, and probably more, for when people turned around a second time and flee back out into the parking lot, and you have 11:50. The car bombs were set to explode at noon.

So, Rachel died and Richard was shot because Eric didn't want anything between him and the west entrance, and Daniel R. died and Lance and Sean were shot because Dylan could not have anything between him and descending the stairs. Don't think they make any sense otherwise. If Plan A wasn't still in the works, then they'd have waved at those people and went into the cafeteria to open fire.

Also means Dave Sanders telling them to run the other way wasn't all that brilliant even if it was better than hiding under the tables. This had been planned for. Gardner shooting at Eric and their being poor shots had more to do with those people getting away. Though I gave above probably the best reason, the conflict in Dylan's notes, maybe that's the reason for the myth of shooting from the parking lots. Otherwise Dave isn't a martyr.

I don't thinks this (at 9:00) makes any sense:

That is very interesting and to be honest makes a lot of sense! Especially with the timings not being 'exact' and more estimates so to say...

I have always thought of it as a "plan B" scenario but this has definitely challenged my thoughts about it completely!

jodie-b wrote:

That is very interesting and to be honest makes a lot of sense! Especially with the timings not being 'exact' and more estimates so to say...

I have always thought of it as a "plan B" scenario but this has definitely challenged my thoughts about it completely!

Glad to hear/see. One bit I forgot to mention was I think Dylan firing at people fleeing from the exits with his TEC-9 is why he shot so few times with it while outside, yet spent the shotgun into Lance's face. Think it's more about saving ammo for those fleeing than it is about being afraid to shoot. He certainly wasn't afraid to shoot inside the school, or to use the shotgun. Was also outside when he dropped the 50-round magazine which I guess was jamming, so perhaps he was test-firing.

Here's what Cullen has to say about the clocks:
“The timing devices were not precise. No digital readouts with seconds counting down in red numerals; they were old-fashioned clocks with a third little alarm hand positioned two-fifths of the way between the 3 and the 4. But they should have blown by now.

Hundreds of targets streamed out the student entrance. They hopped into their cars and zipped away. Time for Plan B. There was no Plan B."

"But they should have blown by now" Why? He just said they weren't precise.

"Hundreds of targets streamed out the student entrance" Never heard that before. Hundreds would leave the school during the first lunch period?

"Time for Plan B. There was no Plan B" Sums up how absurd I think it is.