My Problem with Sue Klebold

So, I've been reading a lot of Sue's interviews and times she's been on podcasts, and I can see a very reoccurring theme, she won't admit it, but she definitely blames Eric in a way for how Dylan ended up killing people. She constantly says Eric was "disturbed" and "sick" and his writings contrasted Dylan's. But Dylan was "depressed." Ok, so if Eric is sick, how is Dylan not? They both ended up killing people. Doesn't really matter how they got there, they both did it. I just think what Sue is doing is very disingenuous and it sort of angers me because it further pushes the narrative of Eric being the big bad tough psychopath killer and Dylan being the gullible, depressed, tricked kid. When anyone who has truly even studied Columbine for an hour can know that, that wasn't the case at all.

Anyone's thoughts on this? I'm sure Eric's parents probably hold some bias against on Dylan as well, but I don't know.

I think this is the consensus for most of us who've read into the case to any degree.
It's understandable why Sue thinks the way she does. It may be a self-protective mechanism, a way to hold onto some semblance of the person she thought Dylan was. What easier way than to lessen his blame by laying more of it on someone else?
I'm not entirely sure she does it knowingly, however. I mostly think that she believes that she has studied things enough to have a better understanding. But little things like not being able to outright state that Dylan murdered people (she usually says things like "hurt") seems to indicate that she is blocking the most disturbing aspects of his behavior, even now. She knows he murdered people but she seems to prefer to compartmentalize that and focus on other things, mostly his feelings. And even though the vast majority of depressed, suicidal people don't go on to kill others, it's almost like she's justifying (too strong of a word probably) his actions by his mental illness, when really most people with his problems don't do what he did.
I empathize with Sue; I'm sure her pain remains deep to this day. But I agree that despite her "apparent" coming to terms with things, I don't think she really has.

N/A

Sue still sees her little, dear, innocent son, whom she raised. Her book states: "When I saw the Basement Tapes, I understood for the first time why the world called my son a monster." As a mother, you cannot help loving your child, even if he has killed people

I just finished reading Sue's book for the second time (the first time I had to read it at the library, so I wasn't able to annotate the text). So, I therefore, have to disagree with the original poster's comments. Sue resists placing all the blame for Columbine on Eric's shoulders because she knew Dylan willingly participated, even planned the murders, and so she argues that Dylan wasn't a dupe that couldn't resist Eric's persuasiveness (however difficult that might be). Sue states that she often made a point of watching Dylan interacting with friends. Whenever Dylan didn't want to go somewhere with someone, he would tell them so. He wasn't a depressed, push-over without any agency, Sue often argues in the book.

I would also take issue with the original poster's other comment, that Sue only believed Eric was mentally unstable. Much of her book is about brain health and juvenile depression. Obviously, she knew that Dylan's actions (including his murder) stemmed from undiagnosed mental illness and "blood-thirsty" revenge (she writes that he was a murderer, but she doesn't dwell on this fact, only points out what she missed). So, I think you've misunderstood Sue's book. Her thesis is not to blame Eric, but to show parents the warning signs and how they should respond when they are present.

ChaotixBoy wrote:

I'm sure Eric's parents probably hold some bias against on Dylan as well, but I don't know.

I seem to remember somewhere that in a conversation with the Mauser family the Harris's had written Eric off as a psychopath who had them totally fooled. There are others here who undoubtedly know when and where that conversation took place, and what exactly was said, so I'll leave it up to those more knowledgeable than I to confirm or deny.

QuestionMark wrote:

ChaotixBoy wrote:

I'm sure Eric's parents probably hold some bias against on Dylan as well, but I don't know.

I seem to remember somewhere that in a conversation with the Mauser family the Harris's had written Eric off as a psychopath who had them totally fooled. There are others here who undoubtedly know when and where that conversation took place, and what exactly was said, so I'll leave it up to those more knowledgeable than I to confirm or deny.

It was written by Cullen so take it with every grain of salt you can find.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Wayne was mystified by his son. Wayne and Kathy accepted that Eric was a psychopath. Where that came from, they didn’t know. But he fooled them, utterly. He’d also fooled a slew of professionals. Wayne and Kathy clearly felt misled by the psychologist they sent him to. The doctor had brushed off Eric’s trademark duster as “only a coat.” He saw Eric’s problems as rather routine. At least that’s the impression he gave Wayne and Kathy. They shared that perception with the Mausers. Other than the van break-in, Eric had never been in serious trouble, they said. He and Dylan were arrested in January 1998 and charged with three felonies. They eventually entered a juvenile diversion program, which involved close monitoring and various forms of restitution. wrote:

What's surprising about the Daily Beast article is how forward the Mausers were with the Harrises about Eric's psychopathy. I don't know how Tom or Linda managed to sneak that into the conversation when the topic was supposed to be about Daniel's murder. I think maybe Dave, who relied on Linda's notes taken after the meeting, should have put that into the article, so it's not such a mystery to everyone reading it. Maybe Tom or Linda might have mentioned Cullen or Dr. Hare's book?

jada887 wrote:

What's surprising about the Daily Beast article is how forward the Mausers were with the Harrises about Eric's psychopathy. I don't know how Tom or Linda managed to sneak that into the conversation when the topic was supposed to be about Daniel's murder. I think maybe Dave, who relied on Linda's notes taken after the meeting, should have put that into the article, so it's not such a mystery to everyone reading it. Maybe Tom or Linda might have mentioned Cullen or Dr. Hare's book?

I'm thinking that it might be something Cullen added in himself given what we do know about Cullen. As you've stated, whether or not Eric was a psychopath was not the topic of conversation. I'm sure the families probably discussed something to the extent of "how could you not know you were living with a killer?" and Cullen had to add in that bit about Eric being a psychopath to push his own narrative.

hvernon wrote:

I'm thinking that it might be something Cullen added in himself given what we do know about Cullen. As you've stated, whether or not Eric was a psychopath was not the topic of conversation. I'm sure the families probably discussed something to the extent of "how could you not know you were living with a killer?"

Yes, I was thinking that myself, however, I don't think the Harrises know enough about psychopathy to have an extended conversation about it (at least that's the impression I got from the Daily Beast article), so I think if this really happened, Cullen should indicate who brought it up (for netiquette's sake). Anyway, when Cullen spoke at Elmhurst College, he states that Eric's parents didn't know about psychopathy at the time, and that they didn't know how to deal with it in Eric (his hapless parents at a lost for excuses and motives, apparently). So, since Linda took notes after the meeting, I think that the Mausers brought it up.

It seems to me that Dylan was her golden child who could do no wrong

shrekt48 wrote:

It seems to me that Dylan was her golden child who could do no wrong

Incorrect. She does blame Dylan for Columbine; she does believe his actions during and before the massacre were selfish and deprived. However, that's not the point of Sue's book. You're missing the target.

I still see it as

Yes he did it, but because he was lead astray by Eric

(Or so my view of how sue klebold sees it)