Eric mocking Rachel before kill shot

or has he been full of shame and guilt he answered Eric’s question with a no if he asked him if he believed in god ? I think the situation between Eric and Rachel certainly could have happened but we will never know. 4 to 5 minutes before Gardner shows up and engages Eric is quite a long time and that timeline is being generous. Even Patti noticed them with guns and thought they were toys. It took some time to really digest what was going on for many involved. There’s no way Eric would have let Richard live though and just finish off Rachel. They were right by each other.

Everybody pushes their agenda whether true or not. Movies are just that, movies.

But Richard changed his version so many times. It’s unfortunate but it doesn’t give him really any credibility at all.

Sane One wrote:

But Richard changed his version so many times. It’s unfortunate but it doesn’t give him really any credibility at all.

True.

Sane One wrote:

There’s no way Eric would have let Richard live though and just finish off Rachel. They were right by each other.

In this case, I would disagree. If Richard was lying still pretending to be dead and Rachel was twitching or crying out in pain, Eric might have approach her and ignore Richard, leaving him for dead.

Sane One wrote:

It took some time to really digest what was going on for many involved.

Agreed, but the people being shot at were less confused than the people doing the shooting. Still, there's a number of actions we know Eric did in these 4 minutes. The vast majority involves him standing at the top of the stairs (where he left his jacket), facing away from Rachel and shooting (or throwing pipebombs) south and west.  

Sane One wrote:

4 to 5 minutes before Gardner shows up and engages Eric is quite a long time and that timeline is being generous.

It is 4 minutes, roughly from 11:19 to 11:23. The thing is we actually have very good information on what Eric was doing. The crimesene investigation crew did a thorough job, found the bullets and pipebombs etc.

He couldn't be shooting at Rachel and at the same time facing away from her and shooting at the kids in the field. He couldn't have walked up to her to shoot her and at the same time walk away from her to be throwing pipebombs at the parking lot.

The actions that we know for a fact he did require him to be facing away from Rachel for the vast majority of these ~4 minutes. In these 4 minutes, there's actually very little time in between his "known and established actions" to allow him to walk up to Rachel.

This is why I posted the timeline and was hoping for a discussion. I think the only moment where time allows for Eric to walk up to Rachel was roughly 11:21-11:22 at the same time that Dylan walks away from the stairs and into the cafeteria.

Durinng this time, Eric has 1 minute tops to go to Rachel and get back to the stairs. Because he has to be at the top of the stairs to shoot Hochhalter before Dylan gets back to him. Eric would never manage to shoot Hochhalter, if he was standing next to Rachel at the time. The CHS wall itself would block his line of fire in that case:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

So the only real possibility in the timeline for the "god dialogue" to happen would be this:
1. E&D (facing west, away from CHS) fire at Johnson and Taylor, iunjuring them.
2A. Dylan faces south, Shootes Kirklin and Rohrbough, then goes down the stairs.
2B. At the same time, Harris turns west and runs up to Rachel.
3A. Klebold walks over the body of Greaves, goes into the cafeteria.
3B. Harris is next to Rachel, they have the "God dialogue", he shoots her.
4. Harris quickly goes (or runs) back to the top of the stairs.
5. Harris turns south again, facing down the stairs. He shoots Hochhalter, just before Dylan exits the cafeteria.


This version is I think at least possible. But It requires Eric approach Rachel alone, when Dylan is away at the cafteria. Moreover it doesn't imho leave enough time for Eric to have the "God dialogue" with both Rachel and Richard. (Unless maybe it is a one-liner Eric throws at him while he is walking away).
Remember: He has 1 minute tops to get from the bag to Rachel,talk with her, shoot her, get back to the bag and shoot Hochhalter. Probably also reload.

So guys, put on your analytic hats and tell me what is wrong with my timeline? Where (if anywhere) am I faulty in my reasoning?

Sabratha wrote:

For a long time Castaldo denied that there was any dialogue between Rachel and the shooters. This is the story he told not just friends or family, but also the cops in an official inquiry. He kept to this version for years. Then out of the blue he changes his mind and claims that Rachel was conscious, that Dylan talked to her, and killed her only after she said she believes in God.

I dislike the notion of questioning an eye-witness who is also a victim of the shooting. It is a matter of respect. But nevertheless I am deeply suspicious of this second version of events.
Its not just the fact that Richard lied to the cops and then changed his story years later. It is also the timeline that doesn't seem to leave much time for a dialogue between Harris and Rachel.

If Richard is now telling the truth, why did he lie to the cops at a time where the investigation was not finished and when there was a possibility of further accomplices or a deeper plot? By lying to the cops, Richard must have known he is making the investigation harder and possibly endangering others.

If Richard told the cops the truth the first time around, then why is he lying now?


I think one relatively solid thing we have (and independent of Richard's staements) is the timeline and the findings of the crime investigation team outside link here. Get ready for a detailed timeline evaluation. Quotes in italic are from the JEFFCO, provided through the CNN site. Bolded parts are evaluation of where Eric must be facing:

- The shooting started at around 11:19, the first shots were fired and Rachel and Richard. Harris is facing east, twoards CHS and directly at Rachel.

- "Harris took off his trench coat and laid it on the ground near the top of the shortly after he began shooting."

- Eric turns south, to his right to the side cafeteria entry. Rachel is now to his left. From this position he will fire at Kirklin's group.

- "Harris rested his gun on the chain link fence at the top of the steps and fired at students below." These are the guys coming from the Cafeteria. Daniel Rohrbough, Sean Graves, and Lance Kirklin.

- Five students were sitting behind a few small pine trees to the west of the top of the stairs.  They stood up to run when the two suspects fired gunshots in their direction. This is the group of Michael Johnson and Mark Taylor. To shoot at them, Eric must have turned further to his right. He is now firing west, away from CHS. He is turned with his back twoards Richard and Rachel.

- Dylan is going south, he will next enter the cafeteria briefly through the side door. Then he will go back up the stairs to Eric. What is Eric doing in this short time when he is alone? (other than obviously reloading at least once his Hi-point).

-  "Klebold turned around and walked back outside, stepping over Sean Graves, and joined Harris back at the top of the stairs.  The gunmen continued shooting their guns, lighting pipe bombs and throwing them into the senior parking lot or onto the school roof, while shooting toward the ball fields where students were fleeing." By all evidence, Eric is still pretty much where he was when they started the shooting - at the top of the stairs, too far away to be talking to Rachel (who is already at least badly injured if not dead). Dylan is going to the cafeteria, the bag with the pipe bombs is on the ground by Eric's feet. So I think its fair to assume that it is Eric who is throwing most (if not all) pipe bombs at this time at the parking lot and roof. To do so, Eric is facing south, Rachel is on the far side to his left.

- "Harris continued shooting down the stairs.  Anne Marie Hochhalter was shot as she stood to run toward the cafeteria from where she was seated with friends at the curb by the senior parking lot." To do so, he is turned to the southwest. Rachel is behind his back, to his left. By this time, it is safe to assume that Eric must have reloaded his gun twice.

- "The gunmen threw a pipe bomb in the area where Hochhalter had originally collapsed." This is probably Dylan, because Eric is shooting somehwere else: Additional gunshots were fired toward the ball fields where students were fleeing. This is Eric firing his carbine. To do so, he is facing due west, away from CHS. Rachel is behind his back. According to CNN, this is no later than 4 minutes into the shooting 11:23 max

So what do we know about Eric's movements so far in these 4 minutes? To fire/throw bombs at all the confirmed targets, Eric must have been facing either away from Rachel, or facing south having her on his far left. After the initial volley, he is at no point firing at any target in the direction of Rachel. He has his bag by his feet, he is throwing pipe bombs from it. So its safe to assume he spends most of the time at the top of the stairs, near the bag (as opposed to Dylan, who runs to the cafeteria and back). At this time, Eric has reloaded 2 or 3 times at least. He kneeled, then he got up. He had to squat or at leats reach down to the bag a few times for the bombs, he had to turn his lighter on and off a few times to light the fuses.
This is assuming Eric did not say anything to Dylan, nor hand anything to Dylan, nor point anything out to him, which would take more of his time.

4 minutes is long, but he is doing a lot of things, firing at a lot of people, turning around, reloading, lighting pipebombs. Taking aim at faraway moving targets on the field. The vast majority of the time we know he has to be turned away from Rachel. Does he have the time to walk up to her, ask her questions, shoot her then walk abck to the top of the stairs (leaving his bag)? This is the big question. If I had to say when could he do it, it was probably at the time when Dylan was in the Cafeteria. Back to the timeline:

- Harris and Klebold turned toward the west entrance and fired their weapons into the school as they walked toward the entrance. This is the first time since the opening volley, when we know that Eric has to be facing twoards Rachel again. According to CNN this is still no later than 11:23 Source. So Eric is firing in the direction of Rachel now, but we know he is shooting at the door. During the time when he is walking to the door, could he have turned to his left and fired a shot at her? Possibly, but this doesn't seem to be enough time to walk up to her and have a dialogue with her. Why ther eis no time? Because Gardner is now at the scene.

- Both Nielson and Anderson had the opportunity to flee, despite their injuries, when Harris and Klebold were distracted by the arrival of community resource officer Deputy Neil Gardner.

- Gardner, particularly visible in the bright yellow shirt of the community resource officer uniform, was the target of Harris’ bullets. Harris fired about 10 shots from his rifle at Gardner before his gun jammed. Eric is now facing west, his gun has jammed on his 5th clip or so. Gardner is firing at him and hee needs to unjam his gun or load the shotgun. Certainly his attention is not on Rachel now. According to CNN it is till just 5 minutes into the shooting.

- Gardner, seeing Harris working with his gun, leaned over the top of the car and fired four shots.  He was 60 yards from the gunman.  Harris spun hard to the right and Gardner momentarily thought he had hit him. Seconds later, Harris began shooting again at the deputy. No further comment needed, Eric's attention is on Gardner, not on Rachel.

- After the exchange of gunfire, Harris ran back into the building. Gardner was able to get on the police radio and called for assistance from other Sheriff’s units. “Shots in the building. I need someone in the south lot with me.” It is now 11:26, Eric is in the building. For the past ~1.5 to 2 minutes, he was unjaming his gun and firing at Gardner.



To sum it up: The only possible time for Eric to approach Rachel and shoot her is somewhere between 11:20 and 11.22, at the time when Dylan went to the cafeteria.

really neat!

You’re not faulty in your reasoning. Even though Richard has changed his story so many times, no matter what way you slice it, Richard implies Eric was around. If he had to play dead then Eric certainly was close by, probably within a few feet at one point.

Sane One wrote:

You’re not faulty in your reasoning. Even though Richard has changed his story so many times, no matter what way you slice it, Richard implies Eric was around. If he had to play dead then Eric certainly was close by, probably within a few feet at one point.  

I think it is possible for Eric to approach Rachel, before shooting at Hochhalter (though it would all have to be brief). This is during the time Dylan is in the cafeteria, away from Eric.

But Eric is alone at that time. If he approached Rachel, he did it alone without Dylan by his side. I think this is vital. Why? Because what Richard said in 2012 can be reconciled with that version of events:

According to Castaldo, Rachel Scott did not immediately die. Like him, she was wounded badly and in terrible pain, having been shot several times in the chest and legs. (...) Then moments later, Eric Harris returned to the scene. Castaldo’s memory has wavered over the years concerning what Harris said to Scott. His earliest memory, however, was apparently that when Harris asked her if she believed in God, Scott answered, “You know I do,” after which Harris shot Scott in the head, killing her.

Here we have just Eric Harris returning to the scene. It is at least technically possible (proibable or not, but it is possible).

On the other hand, the version reported to be spread by Castaldo's mom and the Scott family is a different story:

Richard told her that after he and Rachel had been shot, Harris and Klebold taunted and tormented Rachel for several minutes about her faith in Jesus. They vulgarly mocked her faith in Christ as she lay on the ground crying, suffering from three bullet wounds. At the end, Harris jeeringly asked her; "Where is your God now?! Do you still believe in Him?" She bravely answered something like: "Yes, you know I believe in Jesus." Harris then grabbed her by the hair, put the gun to her temple and said: "Then go and be with Him now!!"

I think my timeline shows that "several minutes" were just not there. But let's assume a panicked Castaldo lost his sense of time (which is not unusual for victims in such a situation) and skipping the "several minutes" part. Then we still have both Klebold and Harris taunting her in this version.
The timeline doesn't allow for that. If Harris had the time to approach her and talk to her, it was exactly when he was alone while Dylan going for the cafeteria.

So in the end, I think I at least managed to prove the Scott family version and the "I'm not Ashamed" version of events to be impossible.

ShadowedGoddess wrote:

QuestionMark wrote:

Sabratha wrote:

If Richard told the cops the truth the first time around, then why is he lying now? 

Cynically pushing an agenda, trying to attract fame for himself, attempting to make Rachel's death have more meaning than it really did - take your pick.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]     Add a really fucked up, traumatized mind to that list. Remember Richard saw Rachel die in a horrible way, he almost died himself. It is true that his version of events have changed over the years. He has remembered certain things then went back and said something very different.

I honestly feel that Richard likely doesn't remember very much about what happened that day. I also truly feel that guilt plays a HUGE roll in his memory issues as well. He was in shock, had lost a lot of blood, was paralyzed, couldn't move to help himself let alone to help Rachel,  etc.

It is possible that he created false memories as a coping mechanism, then just couldn't remember which reality was real anymore.

I believe this is the best answer.

I know this isn't 100% that the encounter between Rachel and Eric happened, but even looking at the hairstyle she had at the end of her life (I'd include the prom pictures but I don't know how, but I'm sure everyone knows them) specifically the one where she is looking in the mirror. I had hair as short as that at one point and tried to hold my head up by grabbing the back of it. It didn't work. I doubt that Eric could have held the gun to her head and kept her held up that long where he could talk to her.

I was sure that with the timeline above, I had at least proved that it is 100% impossible for Eric to have the god dialogue when Dylan is near.

Well, now I'm going to prove myself wrong.

I was trying to see if its possible for Eric to have the God dialogue after they shot at Nielsen, but before they enter CHS. At first glance it seemsed impossible, as the timeline suggested that E&D were stopped by Gardner mid-way into shooting at Nielsen. that Gardner probably saved Nielsen by distracting E&D.

However, I've checked Tim Karbbe's book (BTW the best book on the shooting hands down) and Tim writes that Gardner overestimated the time and reported to have arrived on the scene earlier than he actually did. So depending on how early did he in fact arrive, this might leave a potential "time hole" big enough for Eric to actually have the "god dialogue" after shooting at Nielsen, but before shooting at Gardner.

I'll see if I can somehow pinpoint specific events in time better to rule some of this less probable versions out.

katherinex wrote:

I had hair as short as that at one point and tried to hold my head up by grabbing the back of it. It didn't work. I doubt that Eric could have held the gun to her head and kept her held up that long where he could talk to her.

You know what's even more funny (as funny as a homicide can be that is)? The shot in the head that killed Rachel came from the Hi-Point 9mm carbine. Yep, the one that did not get its barrel sawed-off. It is over 80cm long.

So try to imagine Eric holding this carbine with one hand, trying to aim the barrel at the head of Rachel, who he is trying to hold by her very short hair. With this specific version of events, I think we moved from "very unlikely" to "entirely absurd".

I'd like to know whether the exchange truly did happen or not. I can't see why he would make the entire thing up unless Richard is disturbed in the head himself, especially since he apparently directly told Craig Scott about the exchange.

Initially, I thought the final exchange was fictional.

The more I dig deeper into this, the more I believe it's likely to have actually happened.

First of all, while it sounds very movie-like, the whole event was very movie-like. Eric in particular admitted in his journal he felt like in a movie and that feeling intensified with every day closer to the Day. Take into account how much he despised Christians. The late version sounds very much like him as I got to know him through reading up on what happened. Also, he taunted the people as he was killing them. Why not Rachel who he most likely knew believed in God?

Also, the "I do" answer sounds very realistic. I imagine it being uttered not in a heroic but rather a whining and reproachful tone. As in "why do you even do this? You know I do and that's why you're asking me, so why ask? I'm in pain!"


As for Richard, he had a perfectly valid reason to conceal the true story at the beginning. Because if Eric actually executed Rachel for standing firm by her belief, she was always gonna turn into a martyr / hero, whereas Richard who survived upon claiming he did not believe in God and whose parents are religious was gonna be seen as a traitor / coward / that someone who survived because he believed in nothing. Or even worse, that someone who watched his friend shot after saying yes and decided he was better off saying no whatever his true beliefs might be. He might have worried it would humiliate his parents too.

It seems more likely he lied out of guilt at the beginning but then felt even more guilt for not setting the record straight and finally made the right choice. More likely than him fabricating some bullshit in his thirties to feel guilty about in a couple of years.

But who knows OFC.

patogen wrote:

As for Richard, he had a perfectly valid reason to conceal the true story at the beginning. Because if Eric actually executed Rachel for standing firm by her belief, she was always gonna turn into a martyr / hero, whereas Richard who survived upon claiming he did not believe in God and whose parents are religious was gonna be seen as a traitor / coward / that someone who survived because he believed in nothing.

There's been crazy stuff after the shooting against Morris etc, but these people were not shot and were not crippled for life. Even the religious nuts would have left him alone. Also, it has to be noted that Richard says that he did not believe in God at the time. That the "no" answer from him was simply the truth. The anger would be squarely on the shooters, not him.

patogen wrote:

It seems more likely he lied out of guilt at the beginning but then felt even more guilt for not setting the record straight and finally made the right choice. More likely than him fabricating some bullshit in his thirties to feel guilty about in a couple of years.

I'm sure he could have expected anonymity from the Police if the so desired. Parts of his testimony would have been redacted, just like a lot of other people had personal and intimate stuff being redacted from the files.

I can believe that he didn't remember anything and now sticks to the story that his mom said that he was supposedly to say to her in hospital. I find it hard to believe he would lie to the cops in the middle of an investigation with possible accomplices still at large.

Here's a thought. What do you think Eric would think of the reports on the exchange between Rachel and himself especially if he survived the shooting and was waiting for sentencing and his lawyer let him know about this information?

VoDKaComeHere wrote:

I'd like to know whether the exchange truly did happen or not. I can't see why he would make the entire thing up unless Richard is disturbed in the head himself, especially since he apparently directly told Craig Scott about the exchange.

Well after what he went through I'd be more shocked if he wasn't disturbed.

Sabratha wrote:

There's been crazy stuff after the shooting against Morris etc, but these people were not shot and were not crippled for life.  Even the religious nuts would have left him alone. Also, it has to be noted that Richard says that he did not believe in God at the time. That the "no" answer from him was simply the truth. The anger would be squarely on the shooters, not him.

We have to differentiate between what most likely would have happened (or not) / what actually did happen and what he might have thought would happen / what he might have been ashamed of at the time. That's two different matters.

patogen wrote:

I can believe that he didn't remember anything and now sticks to the story that his mom said that he was supposedly to say to her in hospital. I find it hard to believe he would lie to the cops in the middle of an investigation with possible accomplices still at large.

Not sure how leaving out the possible taunting would have hindered finding potential accomplices. Btw people do outrageously nonsensical and selfish stuff every day. What else was the entire shooting in the grand scheme?

patogen wrote:

I can believe that he didn't remember anything and now sticks to the story that his mom said that he was supposedly to say to her in hospital. I find it hard to believe he would lie to the cops in the middle of an investigation with possible accomplices still at large.

Not sure how leaving out the possible taunting would have hindered finding potential accomplices. Btw people do outrageously nonsensical and selfish stuff every day. What else was the entire shooting in the grand scheme? [/quote]

Now we know it wouldn't becaus ethere was no conspiracy beyond E&D. But nobody knew it at the time including Richard. He had every right to suspect that if he gives false testimony, he may possibly aid E&D's accomplices or a future shooter.
Now we know there was no anti-christian conspiracy behind Columbine. But Richard couln't have been sure at the time.

If an innocent victim lies to the police about his attacker, he always has a very big reason to do so. Richard was not a personal friend of E or D, or Chris Morris so that motive is out. Would it have been such a big reason for a declared atheist to hide the fact that he said he does not believe in god while held at gunpoint by two killers? Killers who he saw kill people and got him severly wounded?

I don't this version add up, from a psychological viewpoint.

Quote :

We have to differentiate between what most likely would have happened (or not) / what actually did happen and what he might have thought would happen / what he might have been ashamed of at the time. That's two different matters.

Agreed. But I just don't see a motive for Richard to be ashamed then. Even today he calls himself an agnostic, back in HS he was reported to declare himself openly an atheist.

Maybe some super-evangelical christian would feel ashamed and hide a "no" answer. But even in that case Christians have a very good historical example (St.Peter) that would push them to quickly come clean. "Yes, I was like St.Peter. When faced with death I was afraid and denounced my faith in the Lord in front of the killers". In that case, said person would confess and repent. I know of no priest who would not give such a person absolution (they would declare it a sin, but one that can be repented from and made up for) and I know of very little preachers who would condemn such a person to hell.

But Richard didn't even need all that. He wasn't christian, he told people before that he does not believe in God.


As I said: This case puzzles me, because not only of Richard changing his version of the story, but also because he did not have a motive to lie back then in 1999.

Sorry to kill the momentum, I was out of it for a while.

I thought it was possible his religious parents did not know about his atheism, therefore he could have lied because of them. If they knew, it's a moot point.

Anyway, you keep challenging all his possible personal reasons to lie by bringing up all the globally rational explanations why the truth would not have hurt his reputation in the grand scheme. But he was there. He may not have realized all those points that you see because you approach the matter from an altogether different perspective twenty years later. He just couldn't have been as objective about it.

Not saying that you're wrong, as you probably aren't, but he could have had his own, very private, albeit objectively irrational reason.

I understand it causes the unpleasant itch that can be scratched but not fully healed. There's a lot of mystery and just enough of interesting little bits that keep you attached surrounding this whole thing, that's why I think it keeps fascinating people.

patogen wrote:

Not saying that you're wrong, as you probably aren't, but he could have had his own, very private, albeit objectively irrational reason.

It is of course possible, but I think its not too probable.

It would have to be a pretty peculiar reason to lie to the police when the investigation may very well have stood in the balance. Then keep lying for the next 10 years mostly saying he doesn't remember anything, until finally he changes his mind and goes out with a "true version" that neatly fits to already existing narrative about Rachel (and previously Cassie). Thing is, with the facts we do know that explanation seems unlikely enough that Ockham's razor takes care of it for me.

We know that speculation that Rachel might have also been asked the God question was cricling in the protestant community at least since the "Cassie martyrdom" version was debunked and it turned out that it was in fact Catholic Valeen that was asked the God question.

People were considering the "Rachel martyrdom" option before Richard (the only possible witness) came forward and said anything to that extent. I think that's conspicuous.

What I'm saying: It is more likely that Richard is adjusting his testimony to fit an already established myth, than it would be likely for strange people to randomly stumble on the true version of events before Richard ever said a word.



NOTE:
I certainly don't enjoy questioning a columbine victim's intentions. I likewise don't enjoy writing things that may seem to belittle Rachel, because I sincerely think she seems to have been a sensitive, intelligent person. But I believe the truth is better than omissions and difficult speculations are (to paraphrase BB) better than easy answers.

Sabratha wrote:

patogen wrote:

Not saying that you're wrong, as you probably aren't, but he could have had his own, very private, albeit objectively irrational reason.

It is of course possible, but I think its not too probable.

It would have to be a pretty peculiar reason to lie to the police when the investigation may very well have stood in the balance. Then keep lying for the next 10 years mostly saying he doesn't remember anything, until finally he changes his mind and goes out with a "true version" that neatly fits to already existing narrative about Rachel (and previously Cassie). Thing is, with the facts we do know that explanation seems unlikely enough that Ockham's razor takes care of it for me.

We know that speculation that Rachel might have also been asked the God question was cricling in the protestant community at least since the "Cassie martyrdom" version was debunked and it turned out that it was in fact Catholic Valeen that was asked the God question.

People were considering the "Rachel martyrdom" option before Richard (the only possible witness) came forward and said anything to that extent. I think that's conspicuous.

What I'm saying: It is more likely that Richard is adjusting his testimony to fit an already established myth, than it would be likely for strange people to randomly stumble on the true version of events before Richard ever said a word.

I thought he first told his mother in hospital and then couldn't recall it. What do you mean by "conspicuous"?

patogen wrote:

I thought he first told his mother in hospital and then couldn't recall it. What do you mean by "conspicuous"?

I mean that Richard was the only witness to the last moments of Rachel's life. For many years he did not say anything in public about the shooters talking to Rachel. But the "god talk" rumor about Rachel was already in the air before Richard said anything.

This is the point: The rumor predates the public testimony of the single eye witness. Thus the rumor must have been started by someone who wasn't there and thus knew no facts.

It is conspicuous that after all these years Richard comes up with a new testimony, that fits a theory created out of thin air by a non-witness years ago.

Before he said anything publicly. It's quite possible the original conversation with his mom which supposedly occurred after his arrival at the hospital was the starting point of the rumor.

Thus what you automatically perceive as an outside circle rumor Richard later subdued or comforted to (for reasons we can only speculate about) may have been generated by his mother, therefore it's quite possible the thin air the rumor had supposedly stemmed from was Richard himself -- before he forgot what he had witnessed in the first place.  

Are you sure you don't mean "suspicious", "suspect" or "fishy" rather than "conspicuous"?

EDIT: I believe we would be better off trying to find out whether Eric even knew Rachel was a christian.

Quote :

Are you sure you don't mean "suspicious", "suspect" or "fishy" rather than "conspicuous"?

I meant conspicuous, but not denying that it is also fishy and suspect.

patogen wrote:

Before he said anything publicly. It's quite possible the original conversation with his mom which supposedly occurred after his arrival at the hospital was the starting point of the rumor. Thus what you automatically perceive as an outside circle rumor Richard later subdued or comforted to (for reasons we can only speculate about) may have been generated by his mother, therefore it's quite possible the thin air the rumor had supposedly stemmed from was Richard himself -- before he forgot what he had witnessed in the first place.

Possible, but its pure speculation. I don't recall anyone shortly after the attack talking about the "god talk" and referencing either Richard or his mom. Nor Richard's mom speaking about any of this.

The chronology seems to be like this:

1. Library witnesses mention the "God question", but few at this point know who it was asked for.
2. Info starts to circulate that it was Cassie.
3. This version starts to appear on the news etc. The born-again community rallies around Cassie's case.
4. Police investigation and further witness reports clarify that it was Valeen who was asked this in the library.
5. News of this start to circulate, togeather with the knowledge that Valeen survived and that she was Catholic.
6. Anti-catholic sentiments appear, and the born-again community rallies now around rachel's case, going back to her funeral torch speech etc.
7. The "god question" issue appears again, this time attributed to Rachel. This is strenghtened by the Scott's release of the "I don't like you Rachel and Jen. You are godly christian whores" soundbyte.
8. A few years later Richard changes his story.

Quote :

I believe we would be better off trying to find out whether Eric even knew Rachel was a christian.

Would this resolve anything? E&D could have asked the God question to anyone without knowing anything about their beliefs. There's no reason to suggest either knew Valeen, not to mention her being a Catholic.