How much around the Columbine massacre is accurate?

When you think about it. Theres a lot of old information still lying around regarding the two boys, and IDK how much I can trust this given that

1 : They came to the conclusion that much of the information happened to be inaccurate.

2: Withness accounts arent necessarily accurate.

3: A lot of people repeated information from what they had picked up from the TV-screen

So how do we know weather People Just dont pick up on stuff that they have seen or heard on TV or from others that have picked up on the same story etc?.

I think that this is an important consideration, when a lot of the docs you find dates back to 1999, 2004, etc.

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

The initial reports had the most inaccuracy, concerning the total death count amongst others.
These reports were the origin of the multiple shooter theories, because students had seen Harris outside with his duster on, then others saw him inside without his trenchcoat, so in the panic they believed Harris with the duster was a shooter, and Harris without the duster was another shooter

A lot of things in Cullen's book he seemingly pulled out of his own ass. There's a separate thread where you can read all the inaccuracies.

Not much. Just about anybody who looks into the official story will find holes.  

Nobody trusts JeffCo.

The timeline is made questionable by e. g. Rachel's lunch receipt, the dispatch tapes, and the reports of shots coming from the building.

Nobody agrees on the motive.

The timelines Dylan wrote contradict each other and were obviously rough drafts changed later.

Nobody agrees when the bombs were planted.

Who was the leader and who was the follower or if such a distinction applies. Who was the mastermind

They didn't plan to shoot from the parking lot.

I for one doubt they started shooting because they recognized the bombs failed.

Judging by witness accounts, the library massacre as told in books and movies never gets what was said and by whom and where correct. Judging by the bullet fragments and shell casings etc, there is much to question about what is said they did in the library as well.

Few people trust Brooks.

Much lazy 'fangirl' speculation like that they roamed the halls out of remorse or to get revenge on the lockers they had been pushed against.

Marilyn Manson.

I don’t think it’s a fan girl theory. I think they wanted to destroy the school. I think they were coming down from the high. Why else would they not try to kill people who are in the classroom, they could’ve gotten in. One classroom in the arts wing had kids who were peeing into trash cans. They could’ve been easy

Screamingophelia wrote:

I don’t think it’s a fan girl theory. I think they wanted to destroy the school. I think they were coming down from the high. Why else would they not try to kill people who are in the classroom, they could’ve gotten in. One classroom in the arts wing had kids  who were peeing into trash cans. They could’ve been easy

I've got to agree with you on this one. I don't think it's a crazy fan girl theory but instead a rather sound one. The adrenaline wore off and they were just done. Many people were still easy targets, but neither shooter paid any attention to them.

Screamingophelia wrote:

I don’t think it’s a fan girl theory. I think they wanted to destroy the school. I think they were coming down from the high. Why else would they not try to kill people who are in the classroom, they could’ve gotten in. One classroom in the arts wing had kids  who were peeing into trash cans. They could’ve been easy

Well, lol that I then regret about the art room, I can't say I knew that. Still, I figure the school had been under siege for a while by that point, and any room they tried would've had the door locked, and that they were just piss poor (had to) at breaking in. As I understand, they did try to set bombs on door handles and such, which I imagine wasn't just fun but was hoping that would open them up. I don't think it's the only case where they just didn't think to shoot the locks. They didn't think to kick people to see if they played dead either, or anything not in Doom.

I feel reasonably confident the cops had more to do with it. You have to at least admit cops were higher on the food chain than lockers, and "Many people were still easy targets, but neither shooter paid any attention to them" still makes perfect sense if they had moved on from shooting students and on to the bombs and finding bigger targets like cops, who they must have thought were somewhere in the school. How could they not have? I think they wanted a bigger high.

And I won't say it's necessarily a fan girl theory to say they roamed the halls to destroy the school or for fun or whatever. However I think it's most often a result of applying our hindsight that cops didn't enter to them, and then, respectfully, being left with only fan girl theories, like that they were sorry or hated the lockers because of all the years of torment of being pushed against them and stuffed into them, and the ceiling because uh...? They had bombs at the front facing part of the school they could focus on for destruction, not one more bullet in a locker in the back. As I've said elsewhere, they also could have done a lot worse if it was about destroying every inch of the school. They could have broken all the windows, they could have taken the gasoline off the propane bombs and spread it and lit it, but they didn't.

I find it weird how much people speculate over them, often to the point that some people probably spend more time thinking over specific details of their life than even they did.

A lot of mass shooting cases involve large amounts of lies and heavy speculation. The only exception would be something like with Elliot Rodger or Randy Stair, two people who heavily documented their lives to the point that even I have a hard time getting through all of the content. I mean, mass murderers are a lot less unique than what the media thinks. Going and killing a bunch of people isn't some sort of extremely difficult task to do, and it doesn't require someone to be extremely mentally ill either.

Maybe its possible that when a myth sets in its harder to separate yourselves from it, once its been debunked. Because its easier to cling onto. Especially for some of us that has been bullied. We tend to seek out People that we can relate to. Which is understandable. I Just dont think that we shouldnt rush with jumping into conclusions.

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

Im not saying that Dave Cullen is the definite, but pretty much Jeff Kass and Peter Langman Will agree that bullying was not the main motive. Even though they reach different conclusions at the same time.

For instance the TCM, the Christian martyrdom myth, retaliation for bullying, that they were goths.

I mean the Gothic subculture; first and foremost most People on the outside have very little knowledge of what it actually means to be a goth. Ive been part of the scene for a while, and for the most part its a lifestyle much like any other lifestyle. Think about hipster, for instance. Just that goths are more into darker things, such as horror movies, probably also Gothic litterature from the 18th century and so on. Its a pretty non-violent subculture and lifestyle, oftentimes confused with that of heavy metal. Seeing as I am from Norway, Im very familiar with how much misconceptions that grew out of the church burnings and so on. So I definately agree that theres an element of fear you also had in the case of the Columbine massacre. And Marylin Manson were blamed for it. I cant find any evidence that they were goths. They listened to bands that are popular within both the goth scene and metal scene, such as NIN and Rammstein, but it takes more than that to be a goth. Besides, the goth scene is a pretty non-violent subculture, from the way Ive Come to know it. The metal scene, too. Its really nothing more than a bunch of people that like a certain kind of music and/or lifestyle.
Thats why theres No evidence that they were goths. Mainstream society seems to be pretty ignorant about the true meaning of goth.

The whole thing about Outsiders they seem to disagree on. I believe that they had a fair share of friends, but it could be that Dylan failed to see this himself, if you take into account that he was suicidal and depressed. Its pretty common that most of us can feel lonely. But imagine what that must be like when you are suicidal and depressed.

It's hard to definitively understand what their motive is without analysing the basement tapes. Even if they didn't show them publicly, I think having their friends watch them and contexualise them would have given the closest thing to a real answer.

As I said in the Unpopular Opinions thread, I don't feel it is right to state that Dylan was suicidal or depressed as you cannot diagnose someone after death.

I don’t think bullying was the main motivation, but I do believe they were bullied to an extent. . People do you realize that you can have friends and still be bullied and feel ostracized etc. They’re not mutually exclusive

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I don't know if there was one single motivation but I do think the bullying/feeling of being an outsider helped the rage build.

Pixie13 wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I don't know if there was one single motivation but I do think the bullying/feeling of being an outsider helped the rage build.

I agree! I think there were a lot of factors.

I think the term "a perfect storm" probably best describes their motivation.

Pixie13 wrote:

I don't feel it is right to state that Dylan was suicidal or depressed as you cannot diagnose someone after death.

Uh, Dylan committed suicide, so I think calling him suicidal is a pretty safe bet.

Also, he talked about a screwdriver in hes journal. I seem to remember that he also talked about cutting

Norwegian wrote:

Also, he talked about a screwdriver in hes journal. I seem to remember that he also talked about cutting

To be fair I believe he was talking about orange juice and vodka- Screwdriver.

But he was cutting himself and he did write about suicide from when he was 15. He asked how did he get so fucked up that some sort of entity took over. I think when he was 15 he started to feel like the depression was overcoming him but he didn’t really understand what was going on

Eric committed suicide too, but nobody feels the need to label him as suicidal and depressed. People commit suicide for a variety of reasons that are not always related to depression (for example, not wanting to face justice).

My point is that even if it is *probable* that Dylan was suicidal, we shouldn't be armchair diagnosing him based on a few scraps of notes. We don't know how real his writings about suicide were. I was a rather melodramatic teenager and would write all sorts of stuff about dying because the boy I liked fancied someone else or I'd fallen out with my friends. If you took everything I wrote as a teenager in the same way you read Dylan's journals, you would have diagnosed me as a suicidal nymphomaniac.

At some point I am going to go through his journals and work out how many times he mentions different things (suicide, self-harm, being Godlike, feeling like at outcast).

Pixie13 wrote:

Eric committed suicide too, but nobody feels the need to label him as suicidal and depressed.

Perhaps they should.

Pixie13 wrote:

I think the term "a perfect storm" probably best describes their motivation.

Yes, absolutely. The bullying was only one factor out of many. Dylan and Eric's friendship was the perfect, toxic combination. Both of them fed off the other's energies. It created a perfect storm that led to the infamous shooting.

Its pretty obvious that Dylan was depressed. Im not the one that came up with that idea. This have been known for quite a while:

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

1. You cannot diagnose someone who isn't your patient. You cannot diagnose someone with a mental illness years after their death. Ask any reputable psychiatrist if it is ethical or even possible.

2. "Pretty obvious" isn't evidence. "Dylan was depressed" is a hypothesis not a fact. I'm not saying Dylan wasn't depressed, I am saying it is not the incontrovertible fact that people say it was. Dylan was never diagnosed in his lifetime as suffering from depression, so it not something anyone can state with certainty. It is not a "known", it is a "believed".

3. Sue is looking for the answer to why her beloved son could do such a terrible thing, that isn't surprising nor is it evidence.

If someone shows traits of depression like how Dylan did then I think it should clear to say that they have it even if they weren't officially diagnosed with it.

I disagree.

Firstly, Langman who was cited above went beyond depression and "diagnosed" Dylan with
schizotypal personality disorder. Secondly, depression can also be a symptom of something else rather than a standalone mood disorder. Thirdly, confirmation bias can come into play. If you start with a *belief* that Dylan was depressed, then you will look at the evidence that confirms your belief, just like Cullen did with the follower/leader hypothesis.

Oh yes because committing suicide, writing about how much you want to die, and cutting yourself isn't a sign of depression at all. Langman classed Eric as psychopath therefore I don't trust him on Columbine, also a person can have depression and other mental illnesses/disorder/disabilities as well.

He diagnosed him with depression and psychotic/some thing like that. I also am aware that Sue has been actively outspoken about hes condition, so I believe that this is true

I still maintain that most people overlook Eric’s depression and Dylan’s anger.

I do have a question because maybe I’m not reading as much as I should? When people say there was no bullying are they trying to say that Eric and Dylan were very popular, had a ton of friends and were the cool kids or are they saying that bullying wasn’t the main reason why they did it? Because the latter I don’t believe but the former, that it wasn’t the only reason I’m totally behind that.

I agree it was the perfect storm

I believe that the Only one that says they werent bullied is Cullen. Part of me believes that maybe he has to exaggarete a little bit in order to get Peoples attention or if he truly believes it. Thats the Only person Ive Come accross to deny that they were bullied.

Jeff Kass- denies that the motive was a retaliation against bullying, but believe that they were outcasts.

Peter Langman- says they were bullied, but the extent of the bullying was exaggareted, and that they were bullies themselves.

I believe that they definately got picked on, but that it wasnt the prime motive for why they did it. IDK why Dave Cullen came to the conclusions that he did, but he seems to be exposing a lot of myths around Columbine, mainly because a lot of withness testimony turned out to be incorrect

Norwegian wrote:

I believe that the Only one that says they werent bullied is Cullen. Part of me believes that maybe he has to exaggarete a little bit in order to get Peoples attention or if he truly believes it. Thats the Only person Ive Come accross to deny that they were bullied.

Jeff Kass- denies that the motive was a retaliation against bullying, but believe that they were outcasts.

Peter Langman- says they were bullied, but the extent of the bullying was exaggareted, and that they were bullies themselves.

I believe that they definately got picked on, but that it wasnt the prime motive for why they did it. IDK why Dave Cullen came to the conclusions that he did, but he seems to be exposing a lot of myths around Columbine, mainly because a lot of withness testimony turned out to be incorrect

For me I believe the people that really knew them ( I need to some extent, because how can you really know someone when they’re planning on trying to kill everyone? ) so things that come from Chad, Devon and some of Eric’s friends who said they were bullied. Because they don’t try to justify it or anything like that they just tell the story like this is what happened at school this is what I know from being a student and being in their circle so to speak.

Also I guess for me living in the area and the people I spoke to, I have never met anyone that completely denied the bullying. I do believe it was over exaggerated by the media And yes I was one of the ones who believed it back then. I do sometimes wonder, and I did mention this to my friend who is a survivor, but after Rocky and his group graduated I wonder if they were so bad that once their bullying stopped it felt so much better And like the bullying completely stopped and no one ever got made fun of again because they were just such assholes and so cruel? Just like when there’s a certain temperature change like during the Polar Vortex it was -30 F and it went to 30°F it must’ve fell balmy even though 30° is pretty cold

Plus I still maintain that number one, certain things affect People differently. The same incident can happen to do to bring people. One person might let it go and be able to brush it aside. Another person may hold onto it and test read and then me affect them really deeply. Regardless of if on the surface they seem like they have friends in there well liked. Even if they get good grades etc. Also in a school that big you don’t know wha goes on day to day to every person. Just because you don’t see It doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

I don’t understand why Cullen thinks they were two of the most popular boys in school either. There’s no proof of that. Also to be honest it seems like more girls liked Dylan over Eric. He had a prom date and a date the week before...

I barely had any friends and I even had a prom date. I was horribly bullied but my God i looked hot that night. I wish I still had a picture of my prom dress...

Sue is "actively outspoken" about Dylan having something she never recognised he had until after committing mass murder and she is a firm believer in Cullen's Psychopath Leader/Depressed Follower theory. I don't blame her, as a mother myself I cannot comprehend her agony at her son's actions but I don't think we can take her *belief* in Dylan's depression as *evidence*.

Again, this doesn't mean that Dylan wasn't depressed, it just means that Dylan's depression isn't a fact but a theory.

I am skeptical of the claim that Eric was a psychopath and that anybody is "Depressed" as if it's an illness and cannot be a position come to by reason, though that last one might be rationalizing my own.  I find myself somewhat in the middle. I would say that Dylan was depressed in the sense of felt sad about his life is a fact not a theory, but that Dylan was "clinically" depressed as in chemical imbalance in the brain is surely a theory not a fact.

That said, I find Langman saying Dylan was schizotypal as one of the more insightful attempts at psychologizing the massacre. For one, Dylan did seem avoidant or schizoid or something like that, though I would say the same as above - you can be let down by enough people that you start to feel rational in avoiding them, rather than by birth having been inflicted with the avoidance bug. For two, and why Langman brings it up, it explains Dylan's odd choice of words. Langman is the only one I've seen try to address that issue. It's possible he just liked big words or word play or whatever, but it is one of the more curious things about him, and a big piece of evidence for anybody wanting to suggest mental illness.  Misusing "halcyon" can be explained away as "he just thought it was cool", but it gets harder with "infinence" and other such.

Norwegian wrote:

I believe that the Only one that says they werent bullied is Cullen. Part of me believes that maybe he has to exaggarete a little bit in order to get Peoples attention or if he truly believes it. Thats the Only person Ive Come accross to deny that they were bullied.

Jeff Kass- denies that the motive was a retaliation against bullying, but believe that they were outcasts.

Peter Langman- says they were bullied, but the extent of the bullying was exaggareted, and that they were bullies themselves.

I believe that they definately got picked on, but that it wasnt the prime motive for why they did it. IDK why Dave Cullen came to the conclusions that he did, but he seems to be exposing a lot of myths around Columbine, mainly because a lot of withness testimony turned out to be incorrect

I tend to agree. "Revenge for bullying" wouldn't even be a theory had they not called out for the jocks and said it was revenge  and for all you put us through this last year in the library. Kate Battan seems to disregard anything they said in the library as part of the motive, saying they said whatever came to them in the moment to scare people, like talking about God if people said "oh my god".

When you put their journals next to what was said, it's hard to disagree that the talk in the library isn't the most insightful as far as motive.  It's easy to interpret "this is revenge" and "this is for all you put us through" like Kate does, and Dylan seemed to resent the jocks for having lives and girlfriends rather than their using this to pick on him or whatever. It's been said before that Dylan was a "failed jock", wishing he could have had the life of a 'bully', not protesting against bullying as such. That seems to me to be more what the "revenge" was about at least. "This is for all you put us through" is more difficult, and if said in earnest could well refer to bullying, especially imo if from the smaller Eric. Though it could just as well refer to the same thing as above, of being "left out of fun things", etc. There was certainly something about "last year" that made them plan the massacre and Eric make a "top of the should've died class of '98" list.

cakeman wrote:

I am skeptical of the claim that Eric was a psychopath and that anybody is "Depressed" as if it's an illness and cannot be a position come to by reason, though that last one might be rationalizing my own.  I find myself somewhat in the middle. I would say that Dylan was depressed in the sense of felt sad about his life is a fact not a theory, but that Dylan was "clinically" depressed as in chemical imbalance in the brain is surely a theory not a fact.

That said, I find Langman saying Dylan was schizotypal as one of the more insightful attempts at psychologizing the massacre. For one, Dylan did seem avoidant or schizoid or something like that, though I would say the same as above - you can be let down by enough people that you start to feel rational in avoiding them, rather than by birth having been inflicted with the avoidance bug. For two, and why Langman brings it up, it explains Dylan's odd choice of words. Langman is the only one I've seen try to address that issue. It's possible he just liked big words or word play or whatever, but it is one of the more curious things about him, and a big piece of evidence for anybody wanting to suggest mental illness.  Misusing "halcyon" can be explained away as "he just thought it was cool", but it gets harder with "infinence" and other such.

I believe Cullen is the one who popularized the whole "Eric is a psychopath" thing and we all know how Cullen seemed to feel about Eric.

It's hard to diagnose people with any sort of mental health issues after their death.

Pixie13 wrote:

"Pretty obvious" isn't evidence.

Well if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like duck, I think ruling out chickens is a safe bet.

hvernon wrote:

cakeman wrote:

I am skeptical of the claim that Eric was a psychopath and that anybody is "Depressed" as if it's an illness and cannot be a position come to by reason, though that last one might be rationalizing my own.  I find myself somewhat in the middle. I would say that Dylan was depressed in the sense of felt sad about his life is a fact not a theory, but that Dylan was "clinically" depressed as in chemical imbalance in the brain is surely a theory not a fact.

That said, I find Langman saying Dylan was schizotypal as one of the more insightful attempts at psychologizing the massacre. For one, Dylan did seem avoidant or schizoid or something like that, though I would say the same as above - you can be let down by enough people that you start to feel rational in avoiding them, rather than by birth having been inflicted with the avoidance bug. For two, and why Langman brings it up, it explains Dylan's odd choice of words. Langman is the only one I've seen try to address that issue. It's possible he just liked big words or word play or whatever, but it is one of the more curious things about him, and a big piece of evidence for anybody wanting to suggest mental illness.  Misusing "halcyon" can be explained away as "he just thought it was cool", but it gets harder with "infinence" and other such.

I believe Cullen is the one who popularized the whole "Eric is a psychopath" thing and we all know how Cullen seemed to feel about Eric.

It's hard to diagnose people with any sort of mental health issues after their death.

Depends what you mean by popularized. It predates Cullen and actually came from Dwayne Fuselier, who led the investigation for the FBI, but Cullen definitely used that for his book, and leaned on it whenever he had a problem.

If memory serves, the funniest Cullenism for me, since I don't buy that orthodox narrative that they ever were supposed to shoot from the parking lot, or only went to the stairs when the bombs failed, or even noticed initially that the bombs failed; Cullen has them preparing to shoot from the cars, then the bombs fail, then poor follower Dylan gets spooked and sits in his car, and Eric coaxes him out, convinces him the massacre will still be ok, and heads to the stairs, and Dylan eventually follows, all in 2 minutes, before they open fire.  

Purely made up as far as I can tell. Maybe because Dylan had the short story he wrote about killing students in his car, he was seen sitting in his car reading it? It seems like Cullen is reconciling the myth of shooting from the cars/Plan B with Eric ascending the stairs first and maybe something about Dylan sitting in his car by appealing to his go-to of leader/follower psychopath/depressive.

I think Fuselier's statement of "Eric wanted to kill and didn't care if he died; Dylan wanted to die and didn't care if others had to die as well" (or to make a better chiasmus: didn't care if he had to kill) is pretty insightful. However he also says he came up with the diagnosis of psychopath pretty quickly, and then failed to disprove it. Fuselier says what struck him was the faux apology for the van incident contrasted with the "fucker should be shot", etc written privately.  I'm not a psychologist and won't say it's impossible, but I do tend to agree with a heavy skepticism towards Eric being a psychopath, and doubly so done postmortem.

I tend to think Eric wasn't psychotic, but an edgelord who wanted to be an antagonist. Since Dylan came up with the massacre, he got to be the wrathful protagonist, while Eric was the antagonistic natural force of selection.  The white shirt, the carbine rifle, etc seem more like former human than like Doomguy, and I wonder if his Nazi stuff started from Wolfenstein 3D. Do we have a source saying he played Wolfenstein? It seems the obvious choice for why he first got into German and the Nazis, in the days before memes of Hitler to desensitize one to the comic book supervillain treatment in media and school.

cakeman wrote:

I wonder if his Nazi stuff started from Wolfenstein 3D. Do we have a source saying he played Wolfenstein? It seems the obvious choice for why he first got into German and the Nazis, in the days before memes of Hitler to desensitize one to the comic book supervillain treatment in media and school.

I'm pretty sure his idolization of the Nazis stemmed from a report he had to make in school. He mentions in his journal how he enjoyed writing said report.

QuestionMark wrote:

cakeman wrote:

I wonder if his Nazi stuff started from Wolfenstein 3D. Do we have a source saying he played Wolfenstein? It seems the obvious choice for why he first got into German and the Nazis, in the days before memes of Hitler to desensitize one to the comic book supervillain treatment in media and school.

I'm pretty sure his idolization of the Nazis stemmed from a report he had to make in school. He mentions in his journal how he enjoyed writing said report.

Yeah I am aware of the report but I am not sure of that at all; that was fall of '99 and he chose to do the report on them for a reason. The same for Dylan and Charles Manson who wore a swastika on his face.  Eric had already taken German, been into Rammstein, etc. Kass for example says the reason he sought those out was to feel one with the Nazis. Pretty sure he was already into them, just had not studied them in depth; which leads me to the question of how otherwise he was exposed to them in a positive or at least non-negative light, and I think Wolfenstein is a pretty good guess.

Being the Nazis from Wolfenstein along with e. g. their shirt colors resembling former human and shotgun guy, I have to wonder if Eric in part saw himself as the antagonist shooting at you in a video game, not just the guy behind the screen, and that this was part of his persona as an antagonist of society in general.

I've seen it said before they played Wolfenstein, and it would make sense given they played Doom and Quake and had to be exposed to the Nazis somehow, but I don't recall seeing that mentioned in something 'official' like the 11k or the various books, etc.

cakeman wrote:

If memory serves, the funniest Cullenism for me, since I don't buy that orthodox narrative that they ever were supposed to shoot from the parking lot, or only went to the stairs when the bombs failed, or even noticed initially that the bombs failed; Cullen has them preparing to shoot from the cars, then the bombs fail, then poor follower Dylan gets spooked and sits in his car, and Eric coaxes him out, convinces him the massacre will still be ok, and heads to the stairs, and Dylan eventually follows, all in 2 minutes, before they open fire.  

Purely made up as far as I can tell. Maybe because Dylan had the short story he wrote about killing students in his car, he was seen sitting in his car reading it? It seems like Cullen is reconciling the myth of shooting from the cars/Plan B with Eric ascending the stairs first and maybe something about Dylan sitting in his car by appealing to his go-to of leader/follower psychopath/depressive.

That's absolutely made up. I don't believe anyone besides Cullen has ever stated that. And how the hell would he know anyways? He wasn't there. It's just another thing he pulled out of his ass to make sad boy Dylan look better and scary monster Eric look worse.

hvernon wrote:

cakeman wrote:

If memory serves, the funniest Cullenism for me, since I don't buy that orthodox narrative that they ever were supposed to shoot from the parking lot, or only went to the stairs when the bombs failed, or even noticed initially that the bombs failed; Cullen has them preparing to shoot from the cars, then the bombs fail, then poor follower Dylan gets spooked and sits in his car, and Eric coaxes him out, convinces him the massacre will still be ok, and heads to the stairs, and Dylan eventually follows, all in 2 minutes, before they open fire.  

Purely made up as far as I can tell. Maybe because Dylan had the short story he wrote about killing students in his car, he was seen sitting in his car reading it? It seems like Cullen is reconciling the myth of shooting from the cars/Plan B with Eric ascending the stairs first and maybe something about Dylan sitting in his car by appealing to his go-to of leader/follower psychopath/depressive.

That's absolutely made up. I don't believe anyone besides Cullen has ever stated that. And how the hell would he know anyways? He wasn't there. It's just another thing he pulled out of his ass to make sad boy Dylan look better and scary monster Eric look worse.

Here's the actual quote:
"The bomb failure appears to have rattled one of the boys. No one observed what happened next. Either boy might have panicked, but Eric was unflappable, the reverse of his partner. The physical evidence also points to Dylan. Eric apparently acted swiftly to retrieve his emotional young partner. We don't know whether they employed their hand signals, or how they came together. We know that Eric was in the prime location yet abandoned it to come to Dylan's. And Eric moved quickly. Within two minutes, Eric had figured out that the bombs had failed, grabbed his packs, crossed the lot to Dylan's car, rushed with him to the building, and climbed the external stairs to the west exit. That's the first place they were observed, at 11:19."

I didn't have it exactly right, but close enough, and seems pretty made up. He definitely says plan A was to shoot from the parking lot:

"mow the departers down in a cross fire and advance on the exits as scripted"

"But it took them away from their primary target: the student entrance, still disgorging students. They could no longer triangulate or advance aggressively without separating."

"Each car was positioned for a perfect view. The cafeteria would explode in front of them; they would watch their classmates be torn apart and incinerated, and their high school burning to the ground."

"Dylan drove to his normal spot in the senior lot and parked his BMW directly in front of the cafeteria. When theattack began, this would afford him a clear sweep of the southwest side of the building: the long, wide arc of green-tinted windows that wrapped the commons on the first floor and the library above.

Eric continued on to the small junior lot, about a hundred yards to Dylan's right. Eric had the choice spot, directly facing the student entrance, where the bulk of the survivors would presumably flee. He could also cover the fullsoutheast side of the building and interlock his fire with Dylan's to his left"

But does that make sense when compared to the stairs? Wouldn't they risk the massacre ending too early by injuring themselves with glass and fire? Wouldn't they be completely powerless if people ran the other way, up the cafeteria stairs and out the west entrance or out the back, north entrance?

The stairs as Plan A means they are shielded from the blast - which also means they may have been shielded from noticing whether the bombs worked, and had to go by their watches. The stairs also mean they can go either direction their victims go, entering the west entrance if people turned around, exactly as they did.

Also, I've cited Krabbe as evidence that the timing devices weren't precise, and so it seems silly to suggest they would give up on the bombs in two minutes, rather than think they were about to explode or did already. Despite buying the "plan B" narrative, and to my surprise, Cullen also supports this: "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."

Damn if that isn't the exact thing I've said but quoting Krabbe, not Cullen.   If that's the case, expecting the bombs to explode by 11:20 i. e. the 4 and so shooting the people in your way at 11:19 makes quite a bit of sense if you ask me. Need the west entrance to enter if people turn around, so get Rachel and Richard out of the way. Dylan has to descend the stairs to spray the exits, so have to get Dan/Lance/Sean out of the way.  But then and only then - when he can see the cafeteria, does Dylan notice the bombs failed, much like he descended the cafeteria stairs on the CCTV looking straight ahead until Eric gestured and diverted his attention. Hence he went to check on the bombs then, because they didn't know they had failed before. If they did, he wouldn't check, it seems to me.  The usual story is that looking at the watches was the check that the bombs failed, and they were so confident in it that they started shooting. So why is Dylan checking anything?

Also he says Eric missed a psychology test, but as I recall Brooks said it was a Chinese philosophy test.

He also says this "They couldn't plant the big bombs until "A" lunch began." Huh?

hvernon wrote:

That's absolutely made up. I don't believe anyone besides Cullen has ever stated that. And how the hell would he know anyways? He wasn't there. It's just another thing he pulled out of his ass to make sad boy Dylan look better and scary monster Eric look worse.

Larkin's book Comprehending Columbine and the new one, (the author escapes.me and my book is at home), Columbine 20 Years Later, both say that they intended to stay by their cars and shoot. This "triangulation" tactic. But only Cullen says Eric pulled freaking out sad sack Dylan to the hill.
It would be one thing if he wrote it as theory. As "this is what I think happened". But he writes it as a straight fact and it's ridiculous. I don't buy it for a second.

thelmar wrote:

hvernon wrote:

That's absolutely made up. I don't believe anyone besides Cullen has ever stated that. And how the hell would he know anyways? He wasn't there. It's just another thing he pulled out of his ass to make sad boy Dylan look better and scary monster Eric look worse.

Larkin's book Comprehending Columbine and the new one, (the author escapes.me and my book is at home), Columbine 20 Years Later, both say that they intended to stay by their cars and shoot. This "triangulation" tactic. But only Cullen says Eric pulled freaking out sad sack Dylan to the hill.
It would be one thing if he wrote it as theory. As "this is what I think happened". But he writes it as a straight fact and it's ridiculous. I don't buy it for a second.

Cullen even mentions in his book that no one observed what happened next yet goes on to state that Eric pushed Dylan into it as though it is a fact. It would definitely be better if he wrote things intending them to be a theory or his opinion. He just doesn't though, you're right. It would make his book slightly more credible than it is if he did state things like this as a theory and not a fact.

thelmar wrote:

hvernon wrote:

That's absolutely made up. I don't believe anyone besides Cullen has ever stated that. And how the hell would he know anyways? He wasn't there. It's just another thing he pulled out of his ass to make sad boy Dylan look better and scary monster Eric look worse.

Larkin's book Comprehending Columbine and the new one, (the author escapes.me and my book is at home), Columbine 20 Years Later, both say that they intended to stay by their cars and shoot. This "triangulation" tactic. But only Cullen says Eric pulled freaking out sad sack Dylan to the hill.
It would be one thing if he wrote it as theory. As "this is what I think happened". But he writes it as a straight fact and it's ridiculous. I don't buy it for a second.

Larkin also does the typical library massacre that doesn't get who or where things are said right. He also says for sure the bombs were placed at the jocks table and it was about starting a political revolution of outcasts. Krabbe's is the only book I know of which (rightly, in my view) says the stairs were where they intended to be when the bombs went off, and yeah I've only seen Cullen mention that part too.

I don't think they ever really explain how the stairs are better than the parking lot if the bombs failed. Surely the cafeteria is the best place to open fire if the bombs failed. Also surprised how "what if their victims turn around" or "they'd be running after people through a cafeteria that's on fire and full of corpses?" or "they'd be knocked on their ass by the fireball and glass out in the parking lot" is never mentioned. As I recall Krabbe at least says no witnesses say they waited by the cars.

I can also imagine them opting for giving Eric the elevation and the exit in case the victims run the other way instead of two guns at the entrance. As in, do they really need two? Also, would they even be running out the south entrance at that point? It wasn't connected to the cafeteria, was it? You'd have to go up the stairs first, which could be cut off much faster from the west entrance. Seems to me they act as if they'd be flowing out the south entrance the same way they'd be flowing out the cafeteria, but that is false. Plus the idea of shooting from cars set to explode. None of that makes sense to me anymore. I think it was by the south entrance because much later people would be flowing out of the south that way, not because they would initially from the blast.

Bear in mind that much of that information lying around can be inaccurate. So when you read a news outlet from 2000 it can be misleading, because the media doesnt always get the story accurate. I dont think we will ever get the full answer, as they killed themselves.

Norwegian wrote:

Bear in mind that much of that information lying around can be inaccurate. So when you read a news outlet from 2000 it can be misleading, because the media doesnt always get the story accurate. I dont think we will ever get the full answer, as they killed themselves.

I read Larkins book up until the point where he says that Eric was a goth. And thats where the thought goes WTF. I do know a thing or two about the goth subculture, and nothing could be further from the truth. Goths are easily reckognized through their music tastes and interest in darker things. These guys werent goths by a long shot. I believe that the goth and metal scene has been too much misunderstood by outsiders.

I have, for some reason, been more into the Columbine shooting than other mass shootings. But only person I can think off that could somehow resemble the goth scene would be Kimveer Gill. Much due to the way that he dressed and hes taste in music, plus that he used to hang around at Vampirefreaks, which is sort of an alternative forum. IDK wether he actually just dressed the part or if he truly was a goth by definition. But thats the only one I can think off.

one of the best thing i have read on here is people overlooking eric's depression and dylan's anger. although it is impossible to officially diagnose the two with any psychological disorders. it is safe to say that the two did have some major psychological issues
dylan for one lost so much weight around the time of the shooting, it was unnatural and one of the signs of him suffering from depression,
but then i wonder how he never lost interest in his favorite activities completely and i feel maybe he wasn't suffering from clinical depression after all. maybe he was just extremely sad and angry not necessarily depressed.
eric on the other seemed like a very violent and aggressive person from his journals but alot of the people described him as sweet and respectful. not saying he didn't have his outbursts of anger,
i just feel that their journals aren't the perfect representation of who they were as a person. i feel that they exaggerated their entries maybe because they knew that that will be made public, but one can only speculate.