New book "Evidence Ignored: What You May Not Know About Columbine"

Didn't see this mentioned, so thought I'd share in case anyone might be interested. Right now, this is only available on Kindle (for 2.99 so not bad) but there's a paperback, which should have just went up on amazon as well. Right now, you can read a couple sample chapters of the kimdle version, linked here - it seems to have potential. Going to wait and grab the paperback when I get paid - so will have more to say about it then.

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

The one amazon review seems promising:

Quote :

"I'm only about 1/3 of the way through but there's a lot of interesting info in here. The chapters cover different topics so I'm jumping around reading what I'm most curious about and then I'll go back and do the rest. There's also a huge reference list to support all the facts and claims and give you a place to look if you want to find out more about something.
I just recently started looking into Columbine and thought I had a good grasp of the facts after reading Dave Cullen's book. I was surprised to learn that a lot of what he wrote is refuted by case documents. So far I've discovered that Harris and Klebold actually were bullied quite a bit, as were other students at the school. Klebold wasn't just a depressed kid whose psychopath buddy pushed him to murder people. He was actually pretty angry, jealous, and resentful, and the whole massacre might have been his idea to begin with. And Harris wasn't even close to lucky with girls like Cullen claimed. In fact, the whole affair with the 23 yr old was a complete lie and the cops knew the woman was a fraud way back in 1999. Some of the stuff she did and said was pretty outrageous so I have a hard time believing Cullen, writing his book 10 yrs after the fact, really bought her lies. I know he removed her from his second edition but he acts like she tricked him. If the police weren't fooled, why was he? Looking forward to what else I'll learn."

Bought this on ebook. If you're like me and don't have a Kindle you can download a free Kindle app from App or Google Play stores and use that reader since I was too impatient to wait for the paperback to drop.

I still have the Appendices and References to look through but am otherwise finished and I think it's a good book. I'll go one step further than that Amazon review and say that if the author didn't write this, at least in part, in order to directly refute a lot of the now universally accepted "Cullenisms" then I'd be shocked.
For instance, there is an entire chapter entitled "Dylan- The Follower?" and it contradicts almost every assertion Cullen has made about Dylan's actions prior to and during the attack. There's an interesting part about what Dylan was most likely doing when Eric had his first shootout with Gardner. There's other stuff, too, like Cullen's claims that the media latched onto the idea of the Trenchcoat Mafia and hearing that convinced all the kids to then begin reporting TCM involvement. In the book it says "While it would be easy to blame the media for disseminating this misinformation, the seeds for this story came from within the walls of Columbine High School." It then goes on to detail how tons of kids running away from the school when the attack first started, before any media was involved, were accusing the TCM. The Eric is a psychopath stuff also gets addressed, in detail.

In all, it's a good representation of the facts of the case and a good refutation of some of the now commonly accepted, but erroneous, beliefs about Columbine. There are some points where I wish it had gone further, for instance, there was a great summation of all the contacts between the Brown's and the police but no mention of the Open Space meeting or how the police later tried to cover up just how much they knew about Eric before Columbine.
If the book has one major flaw it's that the writing is very matter of fact, there's no story telling or real lead ups to the next topic. It's kind of like, now we're going to talk about Eric and Dylan's arrest- these are all of the known facts surrounding the arrest, their response, and the Diversion program. The author bio says that she's a veterinarian and that makes sense to me because it does have a very scientific approach feel to it. Like, here's the topic, here is the evidence in support of this view of it, here is the evidence against this view of it, you decide what you believe. It didn't bother me much, especially because most things are backed up by citations, unlike a lot of the books that state stuff as fact and then you have to search on your own to find out if it's true. But if you like books that lay out a scene or try to draw you in to the emotion of the event, then you probably won't like this one because it's a straight, "just the facts, ma'am" kind of book.

I liked it enough that today I also bought the paperback so that I can loan it out to people whose main source of information has been Cullen and the media.

Thanks for that excellent summary/review! I was trying to force myself to wait til payday and buy the paperback so I'm not reading this when I'm supposed to read other things, but just caved and got the kindle version.

It's great to see someone publishing something questioning the half-assed assertions Cullen made. Particularly that Dylan was a sad little follower and Eric the psycho-leader.

One reason it would be great to see some heavily research social science writing on this would be for that missing element of storytelling interspersed with factual info. But, this certainly sounds like far and away one of the better works out there on Columbine. Now to start reading...

Not actually content- related but was wondering about something.

In the book, the majority of people involved are not referred to by name. For instance, Zach Heckler is referred to as a close friend of Dylan's or the "third member of the Rebel Clan," victims like Sean Graves are referred to as "a boy shot by Dylan Klebold," and virtually none of the witnesses are identified. Knowing as much as I do about the case, I could tell who most people were by the circumstances, and for people who don't recognize who's being spoken of, their pages in the 11k are cited so you can easily find it out.
Yet, the author does name other people like Robyn Anderson, Deputy Gardner, Wayne Harris, Brooks, Randy, and Judy Brown, etc. and there's a whole section about illustrating how Robert Perry, Chris Morris, Joe Stair and Brian Sargeant weren't involved.

I'm just wondering if not specifically naming people was out of respect for privacy, or could there be a liability issue to it? I would think, with as much time as has passed and as much publicity that the case has gotten that anyone with any involvement wouldn't really have the ability to demand being kept out of things, but legally I don't know if that's the case.

Does anyone know?

I don't know what the exact laws on this are, but I believe that it is a combination of both privacy and liability. It's possible that the author got permission to use certain people's names. There are also probably certain people that those laws don't apply to. I'm guessing that Deputy Gardner would be included in that list of names. I think it's also a little bit different if the person has passed away, like Joe Stair. Although his family may still be able to sue the author. Like, I said I don't know the exact laws on this.

It also depends on the context, if the author wrote about the rebel missions and included Zack's name I think it would be considered defamation.

Good question Thelmar. Having not read the book and not evening being a non attorney spokesperson, I can't say one way or another but as to being legal issues, I don't think there is any ramification short of libel. So it could be out of privacy assuming the mentioned names said it was ok to use theirs.

spishakwax wrote:

It also depends on the context, if the author wrote about the rebel missions and included Zack's name I think it would be considered defamation.

Hadn't thought of that. Essentially most of what they did on the Missions was illegal, so naming Zach would be accusing him of committing crimes. That could get sticky for the author if he chose to make an issue of it.

Does it discuss the infamous Cassie Bernall/ “I Believe in God” interaction?

true_crime wrote:

Does it discuss the infamous Cassie Bernall/ “I Believe in God” interaction?

No, that's not mentioned.

Quote :

Hadn't thought of that. Essentially most of what they did on the Missions was illegal, so naming Zach would be accusing him of committing crimes.

I suppose if it wasn't public knowledge that Zach participated then I could see that but I believe he's already been implicated and we're talking over 20 years ago so the statute of limitations are long over. I would think even any libel or defamation of character would be hard to prove. No more or less than Robyn who actually was unwittingly instrumental in the boys massacre. But you never know.

Imperator wrote:

Quote :

Hadn't thought of that. Essentially most of what they did on the Missions was illegal, so naming Zach would be accusing him of committing crimes.

I suppose if it wasn't public knowledge that Zach participated then I could see that but I believe he's already been implicated and we're talking over 20 years ago so the statute of limitations are long over.  I would think even any libel or defamation of character would be hard to prove.  No more or less than Robyn who actually was unwittingly  instrumental in the boys massacre.  But you never know.  

Statue of limitations doesn't apply to murder, and being a partner/helper in a murder would result in the same conviction.

I'm still in the process of reading but to address not using names: as far as I understand it, if the names are redacted in official documents, then following that procedure when publishing is the safest route. Unless you somehow get permission to use someone's name. Especially considering the academic/science background of the author. In any kind of official research, you're constantly told to not use names, often even if the person is willing to let you use their name (even animal research occasionally has to deal with this). If you do use names, then someone else who did not want to be identified could be found out based on who was named and the context. That also avoids any legal issues - you getting sued for liable or your work leading to any legal trouble at all for anyone named. It's likely just a product of her caution and sticking to any redactions in official documents.

This is an amazingly well-researched book, and I am appreciating her efforts to tell a story that is as reflective of the facts that are available as possible, and her refutation of some bad reporting and writing that came before.

adastra wrote:

This is an amazingly well-researched book, and I am appreciating her efforts to tell a story that is as reflective of the facts that are available as possible, and her refutation of some bad reporting and writing that came before.

I second this. Unfortunately, it looks like the book is only available on Amazon which will really limit its reach so I don't know that it's going to make too much a difference in changing public perception of Columbine. I'm not sure how books are marketed but she's going to have to figure out a way to reach a wider audience in order to get more people to hear about the book.

Quote :

Statue of limitations doesn't apply to murder, and being a partner/helper in a murder would result in the same conviction.

True however there is zero indication that anyone had knowingly helped in the massacre. Zach doing 'missions' with E & D or even making pipe bombs isn't an indication of being an accessory to murder. That wouldn't explain why Sean Graves name was not used. It's curious to say the least. Again, I don't know, just wondering as thelmar raised the question.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I agree it probably is a CYA from the author. I have never read Cullen's book, I understand it is widely garbage but did he use names of Zach or Sean Graves?

Imperator wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I agree it probably is a CYA from the author.  I have never read Cullen's book, I understand it is widely garbage but did he use names of Zach or Sean Graves?

Yes, I think he used real names for just about everyone. For some, like Zach, I don't believe he included surnames. But I believe all victims were referred to by both first and last names.

thelmar wrote:

Imperator wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I agree it probably is a CYA from the author.  I have never read Cullen's book, I understand it is widely garbage but did he use names of Zach or Sean Graves?

Yes, I think he used real names for just about everyone. For some, like Zach, I don't believe he included surnames. But I believe all victims were referred to by both first and last names.

I've only ever read a few pages of Cullen's book. His tone alone was too grating. You are right to have never picked it up.

With this book, I'm stopping a lot to look things up, check the documents, etc, in a good way (not the total sense of disbelief that I got from the bit of Cullen I read). It makes you want to look at things again, and she does give you things to think about perhaps differently than you may have before. 20 years after the fact, it's nice to have your sense of things given a little more nuance.

thelmar wrote:

Imperator wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I agree it probably is a CYA from the author.  I have never read Cullen's book, I understand it is widely garbage but did he use names of Zach or Sean Graves?

Yes, I think he used real names for just about everyone. For some, like Zach, I don't believe he included surnames. But I believe all victims were referred to by both first and last names.

Some of the victims, like John Tomlin and Kelly Fleming were not mentioned in the book at all (only in the opening dedication where Cullen lists all 13, and then Patrick Ireland.) Yes he used Zach's surname. There were other people whose names he didn't use though, like "a freshman" when talking about Brandon Larsen who Dylan said he wanted to remove his head (or was it his jaw?) from his body (or was it Eric who said that?) Larsen was friends with Dan Lab who punched Eric in the face over Kristi Epling, and I'm pretty sure Cullen didn't mention Lab by name either. There's plenty of other instances of Cullen not using names, and Rocky Hoffschneider doesn't show up in Cullen's book at all.

Noticed that the book got a new review on Amazon. The guy gave it a 2 only because he says the author isn't qualified to argue that Eric was a psychopath, despite the fact that this represents only 1 chapter of the book and at the start of the chapter the author literally says that she's not qualified to make a determination and that it's only her opinion.
I wanted to leave a review to refute it but I bought the book with my sister's account and she won't let me because she doesn't want to be associated with Columbine Like I'm a weirdo or something!

Once I finally get done with it, I might write her a glowing review to counter that

adastra wrote:

Once I finally get done with it, I might write her a glowing review to counter that

You might want to do that sooner rather than later. I follow her on Facebook and she posted this earlier:

Well, I thought that people who didn't like my book
would say that my writing style stinks, or there's too
many citations, or the book is boring. I get that, maybe
it's not for everybody. But it seems like the ones who
don't like it (and who are, unfortunately, the most
vocal!) aren't even reading the whole book. They are
ignoring 9 chapters of documented fact after fact on
various topics related to the case. The focus is instead
on the one and only chapter in which I offer my
opinions on the mental states of the two killers.
Despite the fact that I clearly and explicitly state that I
am not a psychologist and these are only my opinions,
the reviews say I'm unqualified and how dare I try to re-
write the narrative. There's no refutation of the specific
points made, no questioning of the cited evidence
brought forth, just... you're not a psychologist so how
would you know? Answer-I don't know. But neither
does anyone else (even the psychologists), and for
those who didn't grasp it, that was the real point of
Chapter 10.

Well, looks like I was beaten to it by Randy Brown
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Randy
5.0 out of 5 stars Detailed and informative.
November 14, 2019
Format: Paperback
A very well done book.
This author has an amazing skill. She took thousands of pages of interviews and analyzed them and arrived at a very detailed analysis of a very complicated crime.
A very interesting read. Very accurate. Very skilled. Very detailed.

I found it to be a very interesting book.
Detailed. Interesting. Analytical.
Smart.

A very thorough and in-depth look at the Columbine tragedy.

Randy Brown
A Columbine Parent

adastra wrote:

Well, looks like I was beaten to it by Randy Brown
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Came here to post this and you beat me to it! This may get the book some traction, given Randy's involvement with the case.
The more good reviews, the more likely it will be to attract attention and make people (other than those of us here) see that Cullen's version of events is flawed.

thelmar wrote:

adastra wrote:

Well, looks like I was beaten to it by Randy Brown
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Came here to post this and you beat me to it! This may get the book some traction, given Randy's involvement with the case.
The more good reviews, the more likely it will be to attract attention and make people (other than those of us here) see that Cullen's version of events is flawed.

I’m really happy that somebody wrote a book like this. The other books about the case are great like Sue’s, Brooks’s and Casey’s but they’re too close to the situation. So you could say that their perception is warped. But this author is a neutral third-party

I read the book using that kindle shit but it’s overall pretty good. i liked it a lot and sped through it

Finally finished it. Excellent book, amazingly well-researched and I appreciate how she notes almost every available source for things that she can. You can then go look it up for yourself compare statements and think about it for yourself. By doing this, she's also done a great job of dismantling some of the erroneous information out there. Giving people an easy-to-use research guide, essentially, will go a long way - I hope - to correcting bad reporting/assumptions/investigation and help people who are getting into Columbine find and read for themselves all the relevant statements related to a piece of info easily.

adastra wrote:

Well, looks like I was beaten to it by Randy Brown
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Randy
5.0 out of 5 stars Detailed and informative.
November 14, 2019
Format: Paperback
A very well done book.
This author has an amazing skill. She took thousands of pages of interviews and analyzed them and arrived at a very detailed analysis of a very complicated crime.
A very interesting read. Very accurate. Very skilled. Very detailed.

I found it to be a very interesting book.
Detailed. Interesting. Analytical.
Smart.

A very thorough and in-depth look at the Columbine tragedy.

Randy Brown
A Columbine Parent

When I come across things like this, I always automatically think "Wow, they are real people!"

adastra wrote:

Finally finished it. Excellent book, amazingly well-researched and I appreciate how she notes almost every available source for things that she can. You can then go look it up for yourself compare statements and think about it for yourself. By doing this, she's also done a great job of dismantling some of the erroneous information out there. Giving people an easy-to-use research guide, essentially, will go a long way - I hope - to correcting bad reporting/assumptions/investigation and help people who are getting into Columbine find and read for themselves all the relevant statements related to a piece of info easily.

She should hire you as her book promoter, ASAP I agree with your sentiments; it would be nice if the book could gain ground to serve as an alternative to Cullen's.

Onyx wrote:

When I come across things like this, I always automatically think "Wow, they are real people!"

I know what you mean; silly, as we know he's a real person but sometimes people who've been in the news seem removed somehow. To me, Randy Brown is so much a part of the story of Columbine and I've seen him in so many interviews over the years it's a bit of "hey, he writes Amazon reviews, too!" kind of thing.

thelmar wrote:

Onyx wrote:

When I come across things like this, I always automatically think "Wow, they are real people!"

I know what you mean; silly, as we know he's a real person but sometimes people who've been in the news seem removed somehow. To me, Randy Brown is so much a part of the story of Columbine and I've seen him in so many interviews over the years it's a bit of "hey, he writes Amazon reviews, too!" kind of thing.

Exactly!
And it's so bizarre, especially because Columbine sometimes feels like a TV series that has already ended, but from time to time we get some new information from the "author" or dig it by ourselves.

I have noticed that younger generations especially often perceive criminal cases in this way, especially the older ones such as Columbine during which they were not even born. The people involved are almost like fictional characters to them. Huh.