Dave Cullens Columbine

Reading it right and its actually pretty good

You might get some disagreement with that one. ;)

Norwegian wrote:

its actually pretty good

Do you have a death wish?

It's really not that accurate though. I never bothered to read it, so I don't know how well Cullen actually writes despite the fact that it's all bull.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Make sure you follow it up with a good dose of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

He's a good storyteller but unfortunately Columbine was an actual event, not a story.

Lets just say Mr Cullen ruined his authoric integrity with his book, and he is a thing of mockery now.

I suggest reading up on it before making that decision. What Cullen says isnt really that different from Brooks Brown. Only, he denies that they were bullied. There were a lot of things Im allready aware of, but theres also a lot of stuff he digs deeper into. Like the media frenzy when it happened and Erics childhood, the Klebolds being interrogated and so on. Im not sure weather its 100% accurate, but its definately very informative

The problem with any historical event you Will have different interpretations all depending on Who you ask. Columbine has so much information that its Even possible to get many different interpretations to how it happened. I believe its possible that much of it can be connected to the siege of Waco. Of course theres going to be inaccuracies, but he seems to be doing a very good job at what hes been writing, trying to resolve some common myths around Columbine.

Norwegian wrote:

I suggest reading up on it before making that decision. What Cullen says isnt really that different from Brooks Brown. Only, he denies that they were bullied. There were a lot of things Im allready aware of, but theres also a lot of stuff he digs deeper into. Like the media frenzy when it happened and Erics childhood, the Klebolds being interrogated and so on. Im not sure weather its 100% accurate, but its definately very informative

I agree that if you read the book at face value it seems like he is providing a lot of in depth information. But, comparing the book to everything else that's available, we know that a great deal is just flat out wrong and other things are twisted and exaggerated. Cullen states everything as a fact. So, if we, as people who have heavily researched the case, know that some of the stuff he discusses is completely and utterly wrong, how can we just accept that the stuff we are less familiar with is right? Does that make sense?

For example, I don't know anything about controversies over the lawsuits or the funds that were set up for victims in the aftermath. So, when he writes that this person caused this problem or that person did this, why should I believe him?
He also wrote that Eric scored more than the football team and was practically a celebrity at Columbine because his brother was an athlete. We know that's not true.
He writes that Robyn Anderson's friend said Robyn was always bragging on how she did a really big favor for E & D but would never say what it was. That wasn't true, the friend never said this.
He says Tiffany Typher broke up with Eric AFTER he stages his suicide, but she broke up with him BEFORE that and the rock on his head was his revenge.
He writes that Zach and Dylan needed Eric because he was the talkative, outgoing one and they would never cause trouble themselves. According to Sue Klebold Zach was the gregarious one and he and Dylan stirred plenty of shit without Eric around.
He harps on how Eric's psychopathy is building because he was stealing road signs, but then casually throws in that Dylan decorated his room with road signs. An intentional omission of how Dylan was doing the exact same things.
He wrote, as a fact, that Dylan never intended to go through with NBK, that Dylan was panicking when the bombs didn't go off, etc. He simply doesn't have that information, no one does, and looking at everything it seems very unlikely that it's true.
These are just a few examples of his mistakes.

I guess my point is, there is so much wrong with his book you have to question EVERYTHING about his book and not take anything at face value because he had no problem stuffing misinformation everywhere.

Ive done reseach on this before hand, so I dont take it at face value. I did reseach on the author before getting into the book, aswell as reseaching the subject from other authors perspectives. I dont think details matters Just as much, as you will find flaws here and there with any author. Also: He spent 10 years reseaching the tragedy. He even covered the tragedy when it happened. Im not saying you shouldnt take it at face value, but obviously its not a good idea to dismiss it entirely, either. Ive learned a lot of New stuff around the incident that I was not aware off.

I just don’t understand how he could have researched for 10 years  and gotten elementary things wrong...that can be debunked in 10 minutes with google.

Anne Marie Hochhalter said it was bogus and I guess Devon, Brooks, Chad, Sue, Jeff Kass and  various other friends are all “fans” of Eric And Dylan because they talk about bullying, how e and d were bullied (in various degrees ) and the toxic culture  while Cullen thinks they were popular, cool  and were having orgies every weekend...(exaggerating but you get the point)

Details don’t matter? Details are everything. Spreading misinformation matters. How much of the “new stuff” you learned were even true? With Cullen’s track record, likely not much, if any.

Every author is probably going to have one or two details wrong. Misinformation isnt good, but no one Will ever be correct about every single thing. Atleast not that I know
Im thinking that given the fact that he has tried to debunk common perceptions, maybe the reality is that they are i correct or they cannot be backed up by considerable evince, or withness accounts arent necessarily reliable IDK. Im not so sure how right he is regarding bullying and the sex life of Eric Harris, but pretty much a lot of what he says has been said about others aswell. Plus, he provides new information regarding the attack.

So yeah, I think People should Just read the book before passing judgement

Most of what he wrote was debunked.

Most people who disagree with the book have read the book!!

None of them are fans of Eric and Dylan. And Im not saying that theyare entirely wrong, either
. Ive read Brooks Browns book. I found it useful, and Im not really sure weather or not Dave Cullen exaggaretes a bit in order to get Peoples attention. I believe its possible that they were bullied, but it didnt really have anything to do with why they did it, imo. Also, my main concern has been with the two killers, but there are other details to the story that they apparently have debunked. Mainly that they targeted specific groups, such as jocks and blacks. He also elaborated that much of the media information during the aftermath was simply incorrect, because students allready picked up on the stories that they ran on TV

Can you tell us specifically what you think is accurate and where the evidence is to back it up?

The bullying does matter, because it speaks to the culture at the time. Also him painting them as the most popular kids at school who had 1 million girlfriends is blatantly false And he said Eric had a 24-year-old girlfriend which again was debunked in the summer of 1999.


You are right though. They didn’t target just anybody. A lot of what the media reported was false.

I find though just because they have one or two friends does not mean they weren’t bullied. Just because they went to a party or two or maybe have pizza with a girl doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a toxic culture they may have fanned the flames on top of many other factors

Not that I know. I believe that many of them take Brooks Browns book at face value. Im not saying that People should accept everything that he writes(No one should), but I wouldnt dismiss the entire book as a whole, simply because there are wholes in it. He does provide an interesting perspective on the incident. Both during the events leading up to it and in the middle of it aswell as offering up much of other aspects related to the attacks that I was not aware off.

Ive read Brooks Browns 'No easy answers', plus their journals and watched interviews with Sue Klebold, and articles by Peter Langman. Plus, the basement tapes transcript and a few interviews with friends, etc.

Its the first time Im reading a journalists take on this. It was more informative than I though. So so far so good.

The way he writes and gets into their head sounds like he knows exactly what went down. He also talks about how Eric trying to get Dylan away from his car to start the massacre. There’s no proof of that. He says that Anne Marie had a crush on them and there’s nothing to back that up. There’s also how they like to blink-182 even though they weren’t even a band then.

I guess if you want to walk around thinking that they were most popular boys in school, and that no one was ever bullied there and everyone just sang Kumbaya . And when they died every girl in school wanted to date them. So be it. No one’s going to convince me that this book is good

I don’t know how anyone can overlook the plethora of bullying incidents and saying that there’s no bullying and they weren’t bullied to some degree.  And many other books not just Sue and Brooks’s book they say stuff about the culture. .

Out of hundreds of pages you cant remember everything, but he pretty much states much of whats allready been said. Namely, the boys run in with the law, their attitudes towards other students, Erics troubled behaviour, Robyns purchase of firearms, that they got in touch with Mark Manes to get firearms, I believe that There was Erics stockpiling of weapons as Well. I believe that this has been pretty much established generally speaking.

Im not saying that it doesnt. Ive been bullied for many years. What I am saying is that I dont believe that it had anything to do with why they did it. And the reason for it is quite simply because off Erics own writing. Were they bullied? Im not saying that they werent. But it doesnt mean it had anything to do with the motive. Also, that they were supposedly goth. I dont buy that either. Ive been part of that scene for a few years now. Its pretty obvious that goth is a complete lifestyle, evolving around both music and litterature. Its obvious that they listened to NIN or Rammstein but that doesnt make them goth.

I didnt actually recall reading that anywhere, and Im past the chapter where the massacre has taken place. Are you sure that this is correct?

My theory is that Dave Cullen May have exaggareted to a certain degree to get Peoples attention. Because a lot of people have this victim-as-perpetrator perspective. That somehow E and D were bullied into retaliation. As far as I know this has been thoroughly debunked

Anne-Marie has said in interviews it’s sensationalized and  completely wrong. There is a line in the book That talks about how she thought they were cute.

How can you be so sure that people bullying troubled children will not make them want to go through with something like this?

Just because they didn’t write about any instances doesn’t mean it didn’t happen when other people have talked about it. I don’t understand why we are not believing the people that knew them the best!!

I have been following this case on and off since day one. I have spoken to people involved so when I say I don’t believe Dave Cullens  book is accurate I’m  coming from a good place

That’s not what he said though he said they were very popular with lots of girlfriends and were never bullied. That is factually inaccurate. If he said something like Sue said in her book I would be more on his side. However, there’s no proof that they were those popular kids. You can have friends and still be bullied and still feel ostracized.

I believe in the perfect storm theory

To me, Coulkwn feels like they were the most popular boys in school who just really wanted to kill people and have fun. He is ridiculous. I don’t think they were bullied into retaliation but I do believe that the culture played a part in how they felt.

If you want to search [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  posts! Not only does he do a great job at talking about a lot of different things that debunk the book but he’s also hysterical

I bought the book awhile ago and I’m about halfway through it. So far aside from claiming Eric got lots of chicks, it’s a pretty interesting read.

Thats not what Cullen says, though. Theres no contradiction between being popular and having Issues. You seem to give Cullen opinions, here, that he doesnt necessarily express. I believe that he states that they were Well liked by a fair share of people. As far as I know Eric was also feared by a fair share of people, so I wouldnt be surprised if both turned out to be true. I believe that Eric had a very deep seated hatred for other People around him, and that he saw People as inferior.

IDK who Anne Marie is, but I do remember one interview with a girl saying she though Eric was really cute and kind of a dork. I have No recollection of Who did that interview, but it was in here I believe:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
But than People can change stories all the time and lack any memory of what they actually said.

Norwegian wrote:

Thats not what Cullen says, though. Theres no contradiction between being popular and having Issues. You seem to give Cullen opinions, here, that he doesnt necessarily express. I believe that he states that they were Well liked by a fair share of people. As far as I know Eric was also feared by a fair share of people, so I wouldnt be surprised if both turned out to be true. I believe that Eric had a very deep seated hatred for other People around him, and that he saw People as inferior.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is 100% correct. Cullen absolutely does try to get across that Eric was popular.
Here are a few things (not all, but just what I picked out when scanning the Fact Check Cullen's Book thread) proving this:

Chapter 2-
- Cullen writes that dates were not a problem for Eric. That he was a "cool brain" and got invited to parties.

- He "got chicks. Lots and lots of chicks."

- "Eric outscored much of the football team."

- "He was a little charmer. He walked right up to hotties at the mall. He won them over with quick wit, dazzling dimples, and a disarming smile."

- His spiky hair "was edgy and it played well with his swagger. The smile was his trump card, and he knew exactly how to play it: bashful and earnest yet flirtatious. The chicks ate it up."

The Reality-
Eric had a handful of dates (3 or less) with a couple of girls. Tiffany Typher, Katie Thompson, and a girl he met at a soccer game in 1998 (pg. 10277). I believe there was also another girl he met at the mall in '97 or '98. And then the one date with Susan Dewitt. He went out with Sasha Jacobs 16- 20 times (pg. 13254).
Aside from Susan, he appears to have asked out just about every girl at Great Clips and was shot down. Not to mention being turned down by girls like Jen Lautenberg (sp?), Megan Minger, Sabrina Cooley, Brandi Tinklenberg, etc. All of this stuff about him being popular with girls is blatantly false but Cullen presents it as fact. Cullen HAD to have known Brenda Parker was full of crap. The police sure did. Yet 10 yrs after the police discount her completely he puts her in his book saying Eric slept with her. He wasn't fooled by her; her story helped him and he only took it out because he got caught. Dishonest.

Chapter 25-
He writes that Dylan, Brooks, and Eric went to the football games as freshman. "Eric was practically a celebrity because his brother was a starter on the varsity team."
This statement very clearly implies that Eric was popular.
He was not. Another lie.

Chapter 27-
Most of the girls who knew Eric described him as cute. he was aware of the consensus but didn't quite accept it."
I've read all of the police reports. Most girls absolutely did not describe Eric in this way. Another lie.

Chapter 42-
"And why wouldn't Andrea Sanchez like Eric more? Everyone did. He was funny and clever, and that smile, man- he knew just when to flash it, too; just how long to hang back, tease you with it, make you work for it, and then lay it on."
Again, see above where he had very few girl friends and how there was absolutely no one gushing about how amazingly gorgeous and charming he was.

I 100% agree that Cullen is a good story teller and the way the book is written it all seems so plausible. But when basic, easy to disprove facts are laden throughout the book it makes the entire thing suspect. He had an agenda, he had something he wanted to get across and he twisted the truth to present the story the way he wanted people to see it. If that is journalism, God help us all.

If you want to read a book by a REAL journalist, read Jeff Kass's Columbine: A True Crime Story. There are some mistakes in there but they are HONEST mistakes, not blatant deception.

thelmar wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Thats not what Cullen says, though. Theres no contradiction between being popular and having Issues. You seem to give Cullen opinions, here, that he doesnt necessarily express. I believe that he states that they were Well liked by a fair share of people. As far as I know Eric was also feared by a fair share of people, so I wouldnt be surprised if both turned out to be true. I believe that Eric had a very deep seated hatred for other People around him, and that he saw People as inferior.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is 100% correct. Cullen absolutely does try to get across that Eric was popular.
Here are a few things (not all, but just what I picked out when scanning the Fact Check Cullen's Book thread) proving this:

Chapter 2-
- Cullen writes that dates were not a problem for Eric. That he was a "cool brain" and got invited to parties.

- He "got chicks. Lots and lots of chicks."

- "Eric outscored much of the football team."

- "He was a little charmer. He walked right up to hotties at the mall. He won them over with quick wit, dazzling dimples, and a disarming smile."

- His spiky hair "was edgy and it played well with his swagger. The smile was his trump card, and he knew exactly how to play it: bashful and earnest yet flirtatious. The chicks ate it up."

The Reality-
Eric had a handful of dates (3 or less) with a couple of girls. Tiffany Typher, Katie Thompson, and a girl he met at a soccer game in 1998 (pg. 10277). I believe there was also another girl he met at the mall in '97 or '98. And then the one date with Susan Dewitt. He went out with Sasha Jacobs 16- 20 times (pg. 13254).
Aside from Susan, he appears to have asked out just about every girl at Great Clips and was shot down. Not to mention being turned down by girls like Jen Lautenberg (sp?), Megan Minger, Sabrina Cooley, Brandi Tinklenberg, etc. All of this stuff about him being popular with girls is blatantly false but Cullen presents it as fact. Cullen HAD to have known Brenda Parker was full of crap. The police sure did. Yet 10 yrs after the police discount her completely he puts her in his book saying Eric slept with her. He wasn't fooled by her; her story helped him and he only took it out because he got caught. Dishonest.

Chapter 25-
He writes that Dylan, Brooks, and Eric went to the football games as freshman. "Eric was practically a celebrity because his brother was a starter on the varsity team."
This statement very clearly implies that Eric was popular.
He was not. Another lie.

Chapter 27-
Most of the girls who knew Eric described him as cute. he was aware of the consensus but didn't quite accept it."
I've read all of the police reports. Most girls absolutely did not describe Eric in this way. Another lie.

Chapter 42-
"And why wouldn't Andrea Sanchez like Eric more? Everyone did. He was funny and clever, and that smile, man- he knew just when to flash it, too; just how long to hang back, tease you with it, make you work for it, and then lay it on."
Again, see above where he had very few girl friends and how there was absolutely no one gushing about how amazingly gorgeous and charming he was.

I 100% agree that Cullen is a good story teller and the way the book is written it all seems so plausible. But when basic, easy to disprove facts are laden throughout the book it makes the entire thing suspect. He had an agenda, he had something he wanted to get across and he twisted the truth to present the story the way he wanted people to see it. If that is journalism, God help us all.

If you want to read a book by a REAL journalist, read Jeff Kass's Columbine: A True Crime Story. There are some mistakes in there but they are HONEST mistakes, not blatant deception.

Thank you for those examples!!

Kass’s book is superior.

It doesnt matter weather hes correct on that or not. What matters is that it bears No relevance to the attack. Dave Cullen isnt trying to make that point, either. Hes simply saying that they were Well liked by a lot of people, but he doesnt try to make a connection between this and the school shooting. Hes making the point that the personality disorder of EH played a role in the attack and you certainly cant deny that

It doesnt matter weather hes correct on that or not. What matters is that it bears No relevance to the attack. Dave Cullen isnt trying to make that point, either. Hes simply saying that they were Well liked by a lot of people, but he doesnt try to make a connection between this and the school shooting. Hes making the point that the personality disorder of EH played a role in the attack and you certainly cant deny that. He May be wong on 1 or 2 things, but if you look at everything else(hes right that Eric didnt get a prom date), he points out much of whats been allready said.

Ive done some reseach beforehand. Like Peter Langman suggests, there are much information around the massacre that its possible to get different views around the attack, and the events leading up to it. Also, Im not so sure about the history of Christian martyrdom in here. It sounds like a good story, but almost too good to be true. And People tend to forget that our minds play tricks on us. So during an attack when they are traumatized they wont get their facts straight. I believe that Cullen tries to expose many of these inaccuracies of what traumatized students said in the aftermath of the attack. If you read, for example what Evan Todd said about 'weirdoes', its Easy to jump into conclusions that hes talking about Eric and Dylan. But on further notice, howewer, its possible that a lot of Kids got Eric and Dylan mixed up with with the TCM. And its possible that hes actually referring to the TCM, confusing them with Eric and Dylan. There were actually a group of TCMers that happened to be gay. Thats one example of how they probably got information mixed up.

The question is therefore, how much information is inaccurate, how much is exaggareted and how much is accurate.

I couldnt do this without trying to read Dave Cullens book and reseaching school shooters. info.

Norwegian wrote:

It doesnt matter weather hes correct on that or not. What matters is that it bears No relevance to the attack. Dave Cullen isnt trying to make that point, either. Hes simply saying that they were Well liked by a lot of people, but he doesnt try to make a connection between this and the school shooting. Hes making the point that the personality disorder of EH played a role in the attack and you certainly cant deny that. He May be wong on 1 or 2 things, but if you look at everything else(hes right that Eric didnt get a prom date), he points out much of whats been allready said.

The question is therefore, how much information is inaccurate, how much is exaggareted and how much is accurate.

You are a far more forgiving reader than I am. I don't consider Cullen wrong on "1 or 2 things", if you read through the Fact Check Cullen's Book thread, I find he's wrong on MANY things.
I find that he blatantly tried to mislead people with the Brenda Parker info in his first edition. There is no way, after reading all the police statements in 1999 regarding her, that he truly believed she was telling the truth. The police certainly didn't. This, in my mind, puts Cullen across as dishonest. And even when he got caught and took the Parker stuff out, he doesn't say he was wrong. He makes some lame statement about how he shouldn't have been so trusting/ should have been more critical. More dishonesty.
I also believe that he selectively uses only the information about Eric and Dylan that supports the points he's trying to make, and completely omits the things that don't. Another tactic I find to be dishonest. See the above mentioned thread for examples.

Lots of people have written about Columbine. But in those writings, if the author is guessing or assuming something about what Eric or Dylan were doing or thinking, that author makes it clear that this is a guess or assumption. Cullen doesn't do that. He writes, as fact, things E & D were doing or thinking even though there is no evidence anywhere that what he is writing is true. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 's example about Eric supposedly collecting a freaked out Dylan from his car and dragging him to the hill is a perfect illustration. No one knows how Dylan felt; no one knows if he even realized the bombs had failed at that point. No one knows if they had intended to start the attack at their cars or on the hill- they had 2 lists, one said cars, the other said the hill. No one knows if Eric thought Dylan was freaking out. No one saw Eric go to Dylan's car to get him, no one saw them going to the hill together. Yet, Cullen writes that these things happened as if there is no question about it whatsoever. That is not an interpretation of how things happened, that is representing something as fact even though he does not know it to be true. That is dishonest.

I disagree that he is just adding in information about Eric being well liked and not trying to connect it to their motives. He is specifically saying, "Look, this kid had it all, he was attractive, funny, brilliant, everybody loved him, so don't believe anyone who says Eric turned out like he did because of problems in any of these areas." That is effectively stating that Eric's life experiences had little to do with shaping who he was, and that makes little to no sense at all. Moreover, we know that Eric wasn't a ladies man, we know he wasn't popular (he had a few friends but felt Dylan was his only real friend), we know that he did well in school but his grades indicate he was far from brilliant. So, Cullen twisting Eric's actual life into this "he was the total package" caricature is specifically designed to influence the reader into believing that if all of these factors must be discounted than psychopathy is the only other explanation.  

Collectively, this makes anything Cullen writes suspect to me. Does he get some stuff right? Absolutely. But anything that he says that I am not already familiar with, I take with some very large grains of salt because of all the other things he has gotten wrong or intentionally twisted.  

Norwegian wrote:

There were actually a group of TCMers that happened to be gay.

Where are you getting this? Which members were gay?

thelmar wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

It doesnt matter weather hes correct on that or not. What matters is that it bears No relevance to the attack. Dave Cullen isnt trying to make that point, either. Hes simply saying that they were Well liked by a lot of people, but he doesnt try to make a connection between this and the school shooting. Hes making the point that the personality disorder of EH played a role in the attack and you certainly cant deny that. He May be wong on 1 or 2 things, but if you look at everything else(hes right that Eric didnt get a prom date), he points out much of whats been allready said.

The question is therefore, how much information is inaccurate, how much is exaggareted and how much is accurate.

You are a far more forgiving reader than I am. I don't consider Cullen wrong on "1 or 2 things", if you read through the Fact Check Cullen's Book thread, I find he's wrong on MANY things.
I find that he blatantly tried to mislead people with the Brenda Parker info in his first edition. There is no way, after reading all the police statements in 1999 regarding her, that he truly believed she was telling the truth. The police certainly didn't. This, in my mind, puts Cullen across as dishonest. And even when he got caught and took the Parker stuff out, he doesn't say he was wrong. He makes some lame statement about how he shouldn't have been so trusting/ should have been more critical. More dishonesty.
I also believe that he selectively uses only the information about Eric and Dylan that supports the points he's trying to make, and completely omits the things that don't. Another tactic I find to be dishonest. See the above mentioned thread for examples.

Lots of people have written about Columbine. But in those writings, if the author is guessing or assuming something about what Eric or Dylan were doing or thinking, that author makes it clear that this is a guess or assumption. Cullen doesn't do that. He writes, as fact, things E & D were doing or thinking even though there is no evidence anywhere that what he is writing is true. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 's example about Eric supposedly collecting a freaked out Dylan from his car and dragging him to the hill is a perfect illustration. No one knows how Dylan felt; no one knows if he even realized the bombs had failed at that point. No one knows if they had intended to start the attack at their cars or on the hill- they had 2 lists, one said cars, the other said the hill. No one knows if Eric thought Dylan was freaking out. No one saw Eric go to Dylan's car to get him, no one saw them going to the hill together. Yet, Cullen writes that these things happened as if there is no question about it whatsoever. That is not an interpretation of how things happened, that is representing something as fact even though he does not know it to be true. That is dishonest.

I disagree that he is just adding in information about Eric being well liked and not trying to connect it to their motives. He is specifically saying, "Look, this kid had it all, he was attractive, funny, brilliant, everybody loved him, so don't believe anyone who says Eric turned out like he did because of problems in any of these areas." That is effectively stating that Eric's life experiences had little to do with shaping who he was, and that makes little to no sense at all. Moreover, we know that Eric wasn't a ladies man, we know he wasn't popular (he had a few friends but felt Dylan was his only real friend), we know that he did well in school but his grades indicate he was far from brilliant. So, Cullen twisting Eric's actual life into this "he was the total package" caricature is specifically designed to influence the reader into believing that if all of these factors must be discounted than psychopathy is the only other explanation.  

Collectively, this makes anything Cullen writes suspect to me. Does he get some stuff right? Absolutely. But anything that he says that I am not already familiar with, I take with some very large grains of salt because of all the other things he has gotten wrong or intentionally twisted.  

Norwegian wrote:

There were actually a group of TCMers that happened to be gay.

Where are you getting this? Which members were gay?

The only person I know of is Alex Marsh.

I’m not sure how out she was in high school?

Screamingophelia wrote:

The only person I know of is Alex Marsh.

I’m not sure how out she was in high school?

Having one gay member doesn't seem like it would translate to mixing up information that all of the TCM were gay.

thelmar wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

It doesnt matter weather hes correct on that or not. What matters is that it bears No relevance to the attack. Dave Cullen isnt trying to make that point, either. Hes simply saying that they were Well liked by a lot of people, but he doesnt try to make a connection between this and the school shooting. Hes making the point that the personality disorder of EH played a role in the attack and you certainly cant deny that. He May be wong on 1 or 2 things, but if you look at everything else(hes right that Eric didnt get a prom date), he points out much of whats been allready said.

The question is therefore, how much information is inaccurate, how much is exaggareted and how much is accurate.

You are a far more forgiving reader than I am. I don't consider Cullen wrong on "1 or 2 things", if you read through the Fact Check Cullen's Book thread, I find he's wrong on MANY things.
I find that he blatantly tried to mislead people with the Brenda Parker info in his first edition. There is no way, after reading all the police statements in 1999 regarding her, that he truly believed she was telling the truth. The police certainly didn't. This, in my mind, puts Cullen across as dishonest. And even when he got caught and took the Parker stuff out, he doesn't say he was wrong. He makes some lame statement about how he shouldn't have been so trusting/ should have been more critical. More dishonesty.
I also believe that he selectively uses only the information about Eric and Dylan that supports the points he's trying to make, and completely omits the things that don't. Another tactic I find to be dishonest. See the above mentioned thread for examples.

Lots of people have written about Columbine. But in those writings, if the author is guessing or assuming something about what Eric or Dylan were doing or thinking, that author makes it clear that this is a guess or assumption. Cullen doesn't do that. He writes, as fact, things E & D were doing or thinking even though there is no evidence anywhere that what he is writing is true. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 's example about Eric supposedly collecting a freaked out Dylan from his car and dragging him to the hill is a perfect illustration. No one knows how Dylan felt; no one knows if he even realized the bombs had failed at that point. No one knows if they had intended to start the attack at their cars or on the hill- they had 2 lists, one said cars, the other said the hill. No one knows if Eric thought Dylan was freaking out. No one saw Eric go to Dylan's car to get him, no one saw them going to the hill together. Yet, Cullen writes that these things happened as if there is no question about it whatsoever. That is not an interpretation of how things happened, that is representing something as fact even though he does not know it to be true. That is dishonest.

I disagree that he is just adding in information about Eric being well liked and not trying to connect it to their motives. He is specifically saying, "Look, this kid had it all, he was attractive, funny, brilliant, everybody loved him, so don't believe anyone who says Eric turned out like he did because of problems in any of these areas." That is effectively stating that Eric's life experiences had little to do with shaping who he was, and that makes little to no sense at all. Moreover, we know that Eric wasn't a ladies man, we know he wasn't popular (he had a few friends but felt Dylan was his only real friend), we know that he did well in school but his grades indicate he was far from brilliant. So, Cullen twisting Eric's actual life into this "he was the total package" caricature is specifically designed to influence the reader into believing that if all of these factors must be discounted than psychopathy is the only other explanation.  

Collectively, this makes anything Cullen writes suspect to me. Does he get some stuff right? Absolutely. But anything that he says that I am not already familiar with, I take with some very large grains of salt because of all the other things he has gotten wrong or intentionally twisted.  

Norwegian wrote:

There were actually a group of TCMers that happened to be gay.

Where are you getting this? Which members were gay?

This is a great post. When someone lies and lies and lies how are you to know when they are telling the truth. I like the fact you point out how he says things as fact when they are actually opinions. The amount of people I have encountered that have only read his book and go off of that spouting off things as facts is astounding. I am sad that his book is the most well known of the Columbine books. It is truly the worst. I still have yet to read it. I have it and cannot bear to get much into it. I have been stalking your other post so I can gather information from there lol.

As far as the gay comments,,,, I know many thought Joe Stair was gay bc he supposedly was "kissing" another male member but that was for show and Joe was not actually gay. Perhaps this person believed the accounts stating that all members of the TCM were gay

thelmar wrote:

Screamingophelia wrote:

The only person I know of is Alex Marsh.

I’m not sure how out she was in high school?

Having one gay member doesn't seem like it would translate to mixing up information that all of the TCM were gay.

Exactly.

Also back then it was different, being called gay was considered a nasty insult. As far as I knew not many people, especially teens were out and proud.

Especially in a place like Littleton!!

He did a lot of correction om some of the claims he made, so fair enough. Other than that I feel like Ive learned more than what Ive allready have known, enough to reseach further and

Norwegian wrote:

He did a lot of correction om some of the claims he made

Not nearly enough, for if he did I surmise a great deal of the book would have to be re-written.

A lot of the stuff are writing here, that he supposedly said I cant remember to have read anywhere, but if you have researched it for 10 years you must have atleast some clue. If what he says is true than that means we can dismiss a lot of information here. Heres what Jeff Kass has said about the author:

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

Norwegian wrote:

A lot of the stuff are writing here, that he supposedly said I cant remember to have read anywhere, but if you have researched it for 10 years you must have atleast some clue. If what he says is true than that means we can dismiss a lot of information here. Heres what Jeff Kass has said about the author:

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

I am using Cullen's first edition for the Fact Check thread; I have things broken down by chapter so if you are curious as to where something came from you can look it up that way.
I definitely recommend that you read Kass' book next, for comparison. As mentioned in the article, they are in agreement on some things but differ widely on others so it will be a good contrast for you.

thelmar wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

A lot of the stuff are writing here, that he supposedly said I cant remember to have read anywhere, but if you have researched it for 10 years you must have atleast some clue. If what he says is true than that means we can dismiss a lot of information here. Heres what Jeff Kass has said about the author:

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

I am using Cullen's first edition for the Fact Check thread; I have things broken down by chapter so if you are curious as to where something came from you can look it up that way.
I definitely recommend that you read Kass' book next, for comparison. As mentioned in the article, they are in agreement on some things but differ widely on others so it will be a good contrast for you.

I agree!

I also appreciate you Norweigen, even though I disagree and it may seem like I am giving you a hard time, that you are looking into different sources and reading different books. I cannot tell you the amount of times I have heard "I read this one book and I am an EXPERT on the case!!"

If you want to find stuff that are taken out of context you can probably find that sort of thing anywhere. The point is weather hes correct on most of the stuff that he says. No need to dismiss the entire book because there are flaws in it.

Point-
1 : If you allready have made up your mind that these two boys retaliated because of bullying, theres probably a chance that you wont like this book.

2 : Cullen doesnt actually say that they retaliated because they were popular(IDK where this is coming from). He says that they werent outcasts. Two very separate things. He may be right or he May be wrong(Jeff Kass disputes the notion that they were popular, but I believe that the answer to this is somewhere between mass medias potrayal and that of Dave Cullen).

3 : Im right in the middle of the book and I cant recall him saying even half of the stuff thats been posted here and attributed to Cullen. But if People have allready decided to go against what he says, they probably are going to find something anyway, simply because they dont like hes book. That is confirmation bias as we allready stated

You arent supposed to take anything at face value, No matter where it comes from. But if you are going to dig you need to open up a few Pandoras Boxes. It would be ludicrous to take any book at face value.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. In case you ever read anything else that I posted above I DID read a fair share of reseach before getting into the book. Claiming something to be informative isnt the same as saying that you are an expert in the field.

Its not extremely professional to dismiss an entire book as 100% inaccurate, either, because you dont agree with some of the content of it. So far I havent seen anyone claiming to be an expert simply because they have read Cullens book. That would be ridicilous. What I have seen is the amount of Columbiners claiming that Cullen is full of shit. Whereas Ive found that some of hes views on the attack seems to be at odds with other journalists and that some of what he says may be false, thats far from being full of shit. People seem to think that they are 100% correct or 100% false. Like theres no possible in between. Thats Just not reality, and it certainly isnt in this case.

Norwegian wrote:

If you want to find stuff that are taken out of context you can probably find that sort of thing anywhere. The point is weather hes correct on most of the stuff that he says. No need to dismiss the entire book because there are flaws in it.

Point-
1 : If you allready have made up your mind that these two boys retaliated because of bullying, theres probably a chance that you wont like this book.

2 : Cullen doesnt actually say that they retaliated because they were popular(IDK where this is coming from). He says that they werent outcasts. Two very separate things. He may be right or he May be wrong(Jeff Kass disputes the notion that they were popular, but I believe that the answer to this is somewhere between mass medias potrayal and that of Dave Cullen).

3 : Im right in the middle of the book and I cant recall him saying even half of the stuff thats been posted here and attributed to Cullen. But if People have allready decided to go against what he says, they probably are going to find something anyway, simply because they dont like hes book. That is confirmation bias as we allready stated

You arent supposed to take anything at face value, No matter where it comes from. But if you are going to dig you need to open up a few Pandoras Boxes. It would be ludicrous to take any book at face value.

I almost think the whole outcast thing is a perception. Who were really the outcasts at Columbine I wonder?

I think of Robert Perry and it sounded like even the TCM said some nasty things about him...



Columbine seemed very clichey. So in some circles they weren't outcasts. Artistic kids, computer class kids etc.. probably liked them. You can think someone is nice and not necessarily talk to them often or hang out with them.

The popular, rich and pretty kids may not hate you but they also may not go out of their way to defend you or be nice to you in fear of losing their social status.

In Heathers, at least in the musical version, it has been a while since I have seen the movie, Heather McNamara has moments of being cruel but is shown to also be kind and just holding on for dear life, trying to navigate her way through high school. She actually has a huge heart, she has kindness inside her.

I made friends with someone who was very popular (homecoming queen etc) and I was not even low on the totem pole, I was invisible and when I wasn't I was being bullied and I told her she and I probably wouldn't have been friends in HS and she told me she would have at least been nice to me. She wasn't a cruel person but she did make a lot of mistakes back then.

I think Dylan's shyness plays a part in how alienated he felt. Also there are some people who just feel different no matter what. It is hard to explain...

Though the way a lot of their classmates talk about them in the 11k and in interviews is telling.

I spoke to someone once over the summer at a meeting I attended and she told me she was a sophomore and her sister was a senior. They didn't know eric and dylan personally but always saw them together. They figured they were just best friends and she knew they were known to be smart. That was about it.. though eric and dylan had different perceptions of what people thought of them.

Then you have people who say they were weird, no one liked them and they didn't fit in. It is really in the eye of the beholder and you can't know eveyone...

How do you know weather someone is telling the truth? You do so by investigating it for yourselves. Also, like I stated earlier: He pretty much says much of the same thing thats been allready said. I kind of Fail to take it seriously that he lies and lies, given that Ive reseached it beforehand and theres plenty of views that can back up Dave Cullens Version of these events. Now, there are definately holes in it, but there are also which can verify much of what he says.

He disputes the fact that they were bullied outcasts. Of course People are gonna hate on him. Hes not exactly telling People what they want to hear when he disputes things like that. Now is he right on that issue?

I find the answer to bullying puzzling. Some withness accounts backs it up, but they rarely mention it in their journals. So again, this is an open question. But what can be dismissed with almost certainty is that bullying was the main reason behind the attack. This is obvios if you take the time to read the journal of Eric Harris properly. In that case Cullen is right.

No one here is saying that bullying is the only cause. Mostly everyone is saying it wasn’t. But it could’ve been a factor and Collin denies that and says they were the most popular boys in school. That is blatantly false. Just because they didn’t write it down doesn’t mean it didn’t bother them..

Eric does write about how he is feeling. And how he feels like he has no self-esteem etc. and how people rag on him.

Just because they didn’t write “ oh on Tuesday so and so picked on me and I was so sad” doesn’t mean there wasn’t bullying going on.

Dylan didn’t write often, his hard drive was wiped... there are peices we will never know.

The last message was addressed to the one suggesting that Cullen 'lies and lies and lies'. I can tell you right now, that that is obviously_not_the case. Neither are everything that he says opinions. Pretty much many things that he says are backed up by other reseachers. Also, its possible to find sources which supports hes views quite clearly. You find these statements and resources on Peter Langmans webside and on aColumbinesite. In other words its downright wrong to say that he does nothing more but lie, but hes interpretations differ from that of Kass on some points. I decided to read it, because Ive done reseach for a little while, so far Ive read up on Brooks Browns book. But reading bits here and there and watching different interviews I though it was high time to start digging deeper. And therefore Im now going through Dave Cullens book. I honestly would say that it gave me more to for, and much material to reseach. In other words I wouldnt advice People not to read it, Even though I gather that for some People hes highly controversial.

I definately believe Cullen when he says that it wasnt. I understand that other People May disagree on this, but the reason why is because there are too many examples to the contrary. Therefore, my interpretation of this is that bullying can be ruled out as a possible motive. Now, where they bullied? I dont dispute that they may have been subjected to bullying. Evidence, the numbers of withness testimonies, etc, is crucial. Focusing on 1 or 2 things that Eric said or supposedly said rules out the entire picture. And also, being made fun off isnt the same as being bullied. Bullying is an imballance of power. This is crucial in order to understand bullying behaviour.

I think being surrounded in the cafeteria with ketchup being thrown at you, having bottles and cups of poop thrown at you etc. having someone call in a fake marijuana tip , vandalizing a car etc.. constitutes bullying behavior. And those are confirm incidences that happened to them

One has to understand that someone might say “oh it’s just being made fun of” but you don’t know how that’s going to affect somebody. Great if it doesn’t affect you adversely but we already have two troubled kids and even the slightest joke towards them I feel like could have kept stoking their anger. You have no idea how something will affect somebody else. Just because someone thinks it’s funny doesn’t mean someone else well. One person can brush something out there back in the other one won’t be able to.

Why are you making fun of someone that you don’t know? Why can’t you just leave someone alone? You don’t have to pick up someone. It’s really dumb. General you..


I feel like I’m tired of talking about Cullen now and bullying.

Keep saying the same thing over and over again.