What is one question only that you have about the massacre?

Just one question? Can I cheat? I’m gonna cheat just watch me oops

In general: why the fuck didn’t you testdrive those bombs did you have any help from anybody when it came to the preparations for the massacre/the placement of the diversion bomb and how many people knew snippets of what you were going to do? (were you selective in what you chose to reveal to specific people, did you talk about who to say something to and who to leave out of the loop, did you try to recruit anybody in earnest?)

For Dylan: why did you kill yourself last?

For Eric: did you have a goodbye ritual of sorts (and if so, what was it?) or did you not want to contemplate the permanence of farewell until it was time?

I’m making my way through the 11k and found a small interview with Byron Klebold and a pretty lengthy interview with Tom and Sue. I assume there is one with Wayne, Kathy and Kevin. Have you read it? Or am I looking for something that’s not there?

You’re looking for something that is practically non-existent. Pages 10241-10244 of the 11k detail one officer’s interactions with the Harris family (excluding Kevin), but there are almost no details about Eric and the main focus isn’t an interview with Eric’s parents. It’s still an interesting read, though, because it details the fact that they found a device and an explosive concentration of gasoline odor in Eric’s home. You’d have more luck looking at mentions of the Harris family in testimonies from others, such as Susan DeWitt’s statement to police and news articles like this one, or in things like the notebook Wayne Harris kept about Eric and the meeting the Harrises had with the Mauser family.

In fact, investigators did not get to speak with the Harris family properly until October 1999. Wayne and Kathy had initially demanded immunity from prosecution before dropping that demand in August and finally meeting with law enforcement months after Columbine happened. News of the meeting was reported at the time, but investigators agreed to not disclose the contents of that meeting. There is no official record of any law enforcement interview given by any member of the Harris family that was released to the general public.

The Klebolds, in comparison, have been downright forthcoming and cooperative from the start. We know more about Dylan’s home life and family than we do about Eric’s because of it. Eric’s family life can be pieced together by looking at all kinds of sources, but I would give my left arm and leg (and the rest of my body let’s be fair) to be able to read an in-depth interview with his parents and brother.

Hey! I’m quite new into Columbine research, but I really love your blog and am hoping you might be able to help me understand something? Apparently the view is that the boys died virgins, but I have just come across B Parker’s testimony that she had ‘intimate relations’ with Eric twice. English is not my first language, so maybe I misunderstood it and it means something else? Or is it just that Brenda is not a reliable source of information? (This is on pages 10,844-845 of 11k by the way.)

Hi! Thank you for the blog compliment. Exciting to hear that you’re new to the research. I hope you’ll ‘enjoy’ the experience of learning more about Columbine! Your English is absolutely fine, by the way, and you are correct in what you understood from the testimony.

The view that the boys died virgins is the widely accepted truth. It is corroborated by the people who knew them and by evidence such as Eric’s own journal entries that hint at his virginity. Brenda Parker’s testimony is a total fabrication that was later revealed to be false. There are numerous small things that hint at her not telling the truth, as Jeff Kass explains in this article:

One of the faulty hinges some use to showcase Harris’ allegedly
glowing social life was the tattered account of Brenda Parker, who was
24 at the time of Columbine. She told police she met Harris and Klebold
over a year before the shootings at a mall, but could not remember the
mall’s name. She was with a friend at the time, but the friend’s last
name is listed as unknown in a police report. Parker said she had
“intimate relations” with Harris twice, but could not remember any of
his scars or birth marks because it was in the dark. She wasn’t sure if
he wore an earring. She only learned Harris was 17, she claimed, after
dating him for several months. She said she had a photo of Eric, but
police said it “could not be identified as anyone related to the case.”
Parker offered a voice recording of Harris, but police said it did not
match Harris’ voice found on other recordings.

Police then confronted Parker because she claimed to have been in on
plans for the shooting and had meant to participate in it. “Parker was
counseled about the seriousness of claiming to participate in the
shooting, when indeed, that did not occur,” police wrote in a report.

Hope this helped!

Hi, I really like your blog and you’re patient and all with all the questions. I was wondering something kind of weird but Eric being on Luvox for a long time can be a reason why he can’t “connect” with other people and also cannot feel love towards a girl?, im taking antidepressants too and it didn’t work very well I mean I have more energy but I’m not socializing and I feel really disconnected so I start reading about this and is a secondary effect, not in everyone but can happen.

Hi! Thank you very much for this compliment. I also apologise for taking so damn long to get back to you – there’s really no excuse for that, ugh.

I don’t think you’re wondering a weird thing at all, to be honest! An SSRI such as Luvox can certainly have a plethora of side-effects that are not always easy to deal with. We know he was put on Zoloft first and then had about two weeks of nothing before he started on Luvox, which is a process that took place from April to June in 1998. That transition phase between one medication and the other is actually quite interesting, because his journal entries from May are some of the most lucid/coherent of his writings to me.

I think that the medication may have helped Eric somewhat, perhaps in keeping his focus, but I also agree that it could be part of the reason why he didn’t fully connect with people. Another part of the reason why I think he had difficulties connecting with people is because he moved around a lot as a child and was never really given the luxury of bonding with people for longer and more permanent stretches of time. Eric may have felt like any relationship he formed with someone would never last.

I’m sorry to hear that the antidepressants you are taking make you feel so disconnected. I think that’s certainly something to take up with your therapist. It’s good that they give you more energy, but your social life matters too and perhaps you need an adjustment in your medication to help with that.

Mass Shootings: The New Manifestation of an Ancient Phenomenon and their Link to Psychiatric Drugs

Used in colloquial verbiage to indicate an irrational individual wreaking havoc, the linguistic origins of “running amok” stem from the description of a mentally perturbed individual that engages in unprovoked, homicidal and subsequently suicidal behavior, oftentimes involving an average of ten victims (1).

Although it was not classified as a psychological condition until 1849, amok was first described anthropologically two hundred years ago in isolated, tribal island populations such as Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Laos, where geographic seclusion and indigenous spirituality were hypothesized to be cultural factors implicated in this culture-bound syndrome. In his eighteenth century voyages, for example, Captain Cook recorded Malay tribesman randomly maiming or executing animals and villagers in a seemingly unprovoked, frenzied attack (1).

This article was given to me today by one of my wonderful friends from outside this community, who located this someplace and knew she had to drop it into my lap sooner or later. (This is the kind of gift you get when everybody who knows you well knows of your interest in this particular subject, haha!) I had personally never heard of the history laid out in this before – though now I know exactly why the Germans call mass shootings and the like Amoklauf – and thought it is a worthwhile read for that background on ‘running amok’ alone.

The article then addresses something I’ve spoken about before on this blog as well, which is the danger of psychiatric medication such as the SSRIs Eric took. Note that I’m not advocating against medication altogether, as I do believe that some people benefit from it, but the effects those medications can have that involve homicidal and suicidal ideations are well-documented by now. I think it’s worth the read, particularly because it touches upon a lot of the stuff that I’ve spoken about on this blog before and I think we need to re-examine so much about the roots of mass shootings that this may be an excellent place to start.

Mass Shootings: The New Manifestation of an Ancient Phenomenon and their Link to Psychiatric Drugs

Fantastic blog, fantastic responses. Weird thing to say maybe but they’re so well worded to the point where you don’t misunderstand your perspective along with the material being presented. I used to have a blog semi dedicated to this, but from another eye it could have appeared like an idolization blog which makes me cringe to think about truly. Wish I had the words to go along with the photos, because I knew where I was coming from, out of fascination and being dumbfounded

Looking back, I shouldn’t have done the blog the way I did because I
did not realize I had columbine idolizers reblogging my shit with
comments about the shooters looks and how they “loved” them along with
people who were angry which I can now see why as photosets/gifs without
descriptive detail to what I thought was interesting about it was all
left out. Anyways, my interest resurfaced and this is the perfect blog
about it.
       
    

Thank you, first of all, for that massive compliment! It is great for me to hear that people appreciate this tiny space I’ve crafted for myself in the Columbiner community.

When I began to keep this blog, I honestly started it as a way to keep my own thoughts and opinions about the case and evidence organised. The one thing I did purposefully want to share with the community were my translations of We Are But We Aren’t Psycho, given how that book was never translated into English and it was the one that got me researching in the first place, but aside from that I never really set out with the idea that I would still be here so many years later with so many people following my words and asking me questions. I just felt I had to get Columbine ‘out of my system’ somehow, and the best way to do that was through blogging and interacting with the community here.

I have all kinds of people following me. I’ve got all kinds of folks commenting on things, leaving questions, reblogging some posts, or simply liking my stuff. That feedback is invaluable to me now, because it tells me something about the focus this blog should have going forward. Back then, I simply cared about getting the story out and getting it out in a way that would weigh in on the matter with care and integrity. And I still do that, which is why I don’t post every day and why there are over a hundred questions in my inbox and why I sometimes take my long-ass breaks and run a hiatus.. I still care more about what I say and how I say it than about the quantity/volume of posts I can churn out in a day.

Something I’ve found over my years of being here is that text-heavy posts often don’t get the kind of notes that posts with photos do. Your comment about the photosets and gifs made me think about it again just now. A lot of work and research often goes into exactly those posts that fly under people’s radar, while some posts of mine that only took me five minutes to put together have countless notes because they just so happen to include a picture. I suppose that Tumblr is a very visually oriented community overall, so please take this as just an observation instead of as a gripe about what people like/reblog. The only issue I ever have is when my caption on an original post of mine gets deleted by a blogger and then reblogged without the caption more than with the caption. That shit gets to me – it’s often a photo we’ve seen a million times before, and yet people still feel the need to delete the most interesting part of the post in favour of simply having that photograph up on their blogs again. If there’s anything I’d like changed about the way people interact with posts, I would have it be that. =)

I get a lot of people here every day. (Hi, how y’all doing?) Among them, I’m sure, are people who idolise Eric and Dylan. Among them are those who profess to love them, who romanticise them, who will comment on their looks more than on anything else. Among them, too, is probably also the angry pitchfork-wielding mob that does not approve of me talking about these people as though they were human beings. (I say ‘probably’, because I’m low on anon hate and it’s been ages since somebody instigated a fight with me. I’m very boring that way.) Among them are also the educators, the military, law enforcement, government officials, students, parents, high school drop-outs, conspiracy theorists, the politicians, the unemployed, the self-employed, the worker bees, you name ‘em.. and they’re all interested in Columbine somehow, because I’m sure if they were all here for me as a person they’d be over on my personal blog reading my fanfics and listening to me yakking on and on about my favourite fictional characters.

Thing is, I can’t control how people choose to interact with my blog. (Well, I can, to an extent, because I can block and steer and manipulate and yell my way through certain moments. But the point is, I don’t exercise that control-muscle much at all.) It is their right to take from my blog what they will. They don’t dictate what I write and how I write it, but they have a say in the content if they send me an ask about something. I am sure that I have many a ‘fangirl’ follower, if I am permitted to use that term, and that’s all right by me. Some of them will move beyond that point eventually, while others will stick with it for longer than that. That’s all right, to me. They need Eric and Dylan to be something else to them than Eric and Dylan are to me, and if some of my posts are of value to them that way then who am I to judge or disagree with that? 

I personally feel that maybe you’re taking your history as what you perceive to be an idolisation-blog and diminishing it in its value that it had to people and to you back then because of the way the blog was perceived and interacted with at the time. I feel like you ‘know better’, now, and with a resurfacing of your interest (for which I’m glad, by the way!) you can give new shape to how you speak of Columbine and interact about Columbine. I would just very much like for you to recognise the history that comes with that, too – don’t lose sight of where you started or with what purpose you first began or how you chose to interact at first, because a lot of the time there is value in learning our growth. Choosing where to go to next is only possible if one knows enough history to not repeat past errors that no longer suit our needs today. Live with the cringe – I’ve had my cringe-moments on here, too. We all do. Embrace the cringe and vow to do better next time, that’s all you can do. 😉

“Stop trying to take our guns away!” Thing is, people who advocate for stricter guns laws aren’t trying to completely remove guns. That’s essentially impossible and unrealistic. They’re just trying to implement stricter rules which, y’know, prevent civilians getting their hands on an AR-15. I don’t understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp for some people? I genuinely don’t? We’re not trying to take away their freedom; we’re just trying to prevent preventable deaths? I’m so confused?

sickrebels:

thedragonrampant:

Colour me very deeply confused, too, but perhaps doubly so because I’m not American (and I’m not used to all this carnage lol).

I do think it is unrealistic to believe that the US can ever get to the point where all guns will be removed from mainstream society. The industry attached to gun ownerships and the long history it has within the nation will likely prevent private gun ownership from becoming obsolete altogether. I would personally love to see a model like the one we have in my country, which allows gun ownership for specific groups/individuals such as hunters and law enforcement and so on which is also subject to mandatory check-ups on your paperwork for it etc, but I think that even this would be very hard to implement within the US. You guys have a huge history with guns somehow, as proven by the fact that ownership of them is literally locked into your second constitutional amendment, and I don’t think you’ll get to the point where guns can be removed or mandated to the extent which they are over here. (Still, it is good to hope and good to put in time/energy toward this very goal. If you strive for idealism, you will achieve more than if you strive for compromise.)

It is honestly baffling to me, as an ‘outsider’ to your nation, that an AR-15 is considered legal to possess by just about anybody who’s got the cash to purchase it and is older than 18. It blows my mind. I fail to understand why a regular person would have need of it (seriously what the fuck are y’all expecting a zombie apocalypse to pop up or what?) and I fail to understand why that particular gun and all other guns that fall into a similar category aren’t properly regulated in the sense that they require a background check, a sanity check, and a once-a-year control check to make sure you didn’t just magically go off the deep end inbetween somewhere. I mean, come on. You don’t need a semi-automatic for anything unless you’re in a goddamn war zone or indeed subject to that zombie apocalypse.

I can’t tell you how often I’ve heard the arguments “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”.. to which I just say “but the guns help”. There’s a reason why mass shooters take to the semi-automatics and why you don’t hear much at all about mass school stabbings. Anything on this planet that can maximize a school shooter’s kill count and give them the opportunity to kill half a dozen people before law enforcement’s even had time to blink is not a normal thing for anybody to possess and is something that should be and must be regulated to the point where it is no longer available to the general public. You’d fucking well think that the US government is trying to weed out the future generation by how many times they have allowed this shit to go down since Columbine. Hell, even Sandy Hook didn’t make ‘em go “oh wait a second this goes several bridges too far”. When’s it gonna be enough? When do you all collectively decide that your love of guns is killing your children and that something needs to be made law that puts a stop to this? Something’s gotta change, something’s gotta give, and until then you have my sympathies and my eyerolls..

I’d like to pitch in and give my view on guns in US, both as an American and someone who likes guns.

To the anon: it’s a matter of a very vocal bunch of people on both sides. I’ve heard both “ban all guns!” and “no gun regulation!” Obviously, both opinions are rather extreme, and that’s not really how the majority of people in either camp think. I know many pro-gun control people who don’t want to ban all guns, and I know many pro-gun people who support better gun regulation. 

I, and many other people who like guns, definitely believe that the US is sorely lacking in good gun regulation. We aren’t anti-gun regulation, we just want better thought out legislation. The thing is, a lot of gun regulation laws that have been passed haven’t been thoroughly thought out or researched. 

An example of this is the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that was enacted from 1994 to 2004. This act was purely cosmetic – it outlined how the features of certain types of guns could appear to look. It didn’t do anything like actually regulating the actual functions of certain types of guns. Regardless, this act passed. Many pro-gun people were against this ban because this ban didn’t actually help regulate guns in a better way.

As we know, between that time period, Columbine happened. We know that Eric and Dylan acquired their firearms illegally, but the thing is that the firearms they were using passed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban test simply because the producers of those guns tweaked a minute detail on the gun’s features. That’s it.

Eva, the check ins that you suggested are definitely a great idea, and many gun owners would be down for that. The issue is that those types of ideas aren’t the ones that are coming up in Congress. Both sides seem to be in an “all or nothing” mindset, and it’s just not realistic at all. 

What America really needs is for the Democratic and Republican parties to put their differences aside and come together to draw up legislation that both parties can agree on. Democrats need to get real – there is no way that the US will ever ban guns – guns are far too deeply entrenched in our culture. Republicans need to get real – we most definitely need gun control, these shootings are proof of it, and it’d be dumb to deny that guns help enable killers. We need to compromise; unfortunately it seems that both sides are too stubborn and prideful to set aside their differences to prevent these events from happening again and again.

Also, on a side note: pro-gun people who use mental health to deflect from guns are using a weak excuse. I do think mental health is part of the gun problem in America, but it isn’t the sole reason for shootings. These two issues go hand in hand. First, America needs to better enforce the gun laws that we do have in place. One example is Nikolas Cruz – many people in the community reported him multiple times for threats of violence and shooting. This is an example of laws in place that failed. The FBI should have followed through, but they didn’t, and in the end he was able to acquire a gun. Another example is James Holmes – he admitted to his psychiatrist that he was experiencing homicidal thoughts, yet he somehow passed a background check. Clearly, the background checks need to be revised and updated. 

Okay, these are my thoughts. If anyone wants to continue the dialogue here, please feel free to do so! 

Ah, I apologise! I know you’re not American, and neither am I. I was essentially just expressing what I thought in regards to protests against stricter gun laws. I’m sorry. Brilliant answer, by the way. Hope you’re good! :)

Hahaha, please don’t apologise for that, and thank you very much! I think now is the time to discuss such things, given the recent shooting and the call to action that goes out into American communities all over as a result. I think that non-Americans like ourselves can see the subject at hand with a bit more emotional distance, maybe, and perhaps offer a perspective that is not always considered by those in the thick of the argument. I’ve been told that my strongest opinions about it come across as lecturing US citizens on what to do about their guns, but honestly somebody’s gotta come out and say that to most of us outside of the US this whole thing as it is today just sounds batshit.

“Stop trying to take our guns away!” Thing is, people who advocate for stricter guns laws aren’t trying to completely remove guns. That’s essentially impossible and unrealistic. They’re just trying to implement stricter rules which, y’know, prevent civilians getting their hands on an AR-15. I don’t understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp for some people? I genuinely don’t? We’re not trying to take away their freedom; we’re just trying to prevent preventable deaths? I’m so confused?

Colour me very deeply confused, too, but perhaps doubly so because I’m not American (and I’m not used to all this carnage lol).

I do think it is unrealistic to believe that the US can ever get to the point where all guns will be removed from mainstream society. The industry attached to gun ownerships and the long history it has within the nation will likely prevent private gun ownership from becoming obsolete altogether. I would personally love to see a model like the one we have in my country, which allows gun ownership for specific groups/individuals such as hunters and law enforcement and so on which is also subject to mandatory check-ups on your paperwork for it etc, but I think that even this would be very hard to implement within the US. You guys have a huge history with guns somehow, as proven by the fact that ownership of them is literally locked into your second constitutional amendment, and I don’t think you’ll get to the point where guns can be removed or mandated to the extent which they are over here. (Still, it is good to hope and good to put in time/energy toward this very goal. If you strive for idealism, you will achieve more than if you strive for compromise.)

It is honestly baffling to me, as an ‘outsider’ to your nation, that an AR-15 is considered legal to possess by just about anybody who’s got the cash to purchase it and is older than 18. It blows my mind. I fail to understand why a regular person would have need of it (seriously what the fuck are y’all expecting a zombie apocalypse to pop up or what?) and I fail to understand why that particular gun and all other guns that fall into a similar category aren’t properly regulated in the sense that they require a background check, a sanity check, and a once-a-year control check to make sure you didn’t just magically go off the deep end inbetween somewhere. I mean, come on. You don’t need a semi-automatic for anything unless you’re in a goddamn war zone or indeed subject to that zombie apocalypse.

I can’t tell you how often I’ve heard the arguments “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”.. to which I just say “but the guns help”. There’s a reason why mass shooters take to the semi-automatics and why you don’t hear much at all about mass school stabbings. Anything on this planet that can maximize a school shooter’s kill count and give them the opportunity to kill half a dozen people before law enforcement’s even had time to blink is not a normal thing for anybody to possess and is something that should be and must be regulated to the point where it is no longer available to the general public. You’d fucking well think that the US government is trying to weed out the future generation by how many times they have allowed this shit to go down since Columbine. Hell, even Sandy Hook didn’t make ‘em go “oh wait a second this goes several bridges too far”. When’s it gonna be enough? When do you all collectively decide that your love of guns is killing your children and that something needs to be made law that puts a stop to this? Something’s gotta change, something’s gotta give, and until then you have my sympathies and my eyerolls..

At one point during Brooks – Eric situation , Judy brown had picked up Erics backpack because he left it and then Eric got furious .. makes me think what was in the backpack? What do you think

You know, there was a time I kept thinking about it.. It was a few years back, because I’m old as dirt and I have been into this case way too fucking long by now, and I just kept going back and forth over these stories of Eric’s fight with Brooks for quite a while in my brain. I don’t think it was because there was anything that was unclear about it – in fact, I would call the fight and fall-out pretty straightforward (not to mention kinda hilarious) – but rather because I sat there and I found myself having Eric’s back on it. The idea of having Eric’s back on anything seemed ludicrous to me at the time, to tell you the truth, because I was still stuck on that “he killed at least half a dozen people and he wanted to bomb the place so that it’d be flatter than a coin by the time he was done and he was a fucking piece of shit for even considering it”-mindset and I really didn’t want to entertain the idea that Eric might have been right about anything. (I still don’t, by the way, but I do it anyway because the kid wore me down over the years. *laughs*)

And back then, you know, I thought “what if he had something in that backpack he didn’t want Judy or anybody else to see?”. What if he’d had violent drawings in it, or offhand snappy notes about wanting to throttle somebody so they’d turn very interesting rainbow shades before dying, or what if he’d had some kind of tiny gunpowder-filled jar in there, or what if what if what if. And I kept circling on that, and coming back to it, because Eric’s furious reaction would make the most sense if he’d had anything in that backpack that he’d wanted to hide. If he’d been worried about what was in the backpack, he would’ve done anything and moved heaven and earth to get that thing back. And, sure, yeah, he had left it lyin’ around there and he’d practically abandoned the thing but he couldn’t have known that anybody would pick it up and take it with them.. right?

Yeah, so, thus concludes the circle of logic that wants to see nefarious intent in anything Eric says and does.

I couldn’t figure out why I couldn’t figure it out, why I couldn’t just say “yeah he had something in that backpack of his and he was terrified of anybody finding it before it was time”.. and then, well, then I remembered that there was no honest-to-god reason why he’d have anything in that backpack he wouldn’t want discovered because he was lightyears away from the massacre when it happened and the biggest pile of bullshit he got up to at the time were some petty things like cracking Brooks’s windshield and covering people’s houses in the non-flowery kind of toilet paper. And that’s when my other lizard brain kicked in, which is the lizard brain that tells me “Eric is right about anything and everything and you fucking well know it” (and believe me when I say it gets a kick in the teeth on the daily even now), and that’s roughly around the time when I realised one thing:

I would have been so, so, so fucking pissed if anybody had dared take my property away from me.

Was Eric’s fury disproportionate in response? Sure, yeah, probably. But honestly, I don’t blame him. I really cannot find it in myself to blame him for getting pissed as all get-out at Judy and Brooks and the whole nine yards that came with ‘em. Brooks freakin’ well ratted Eric out to his mom and if his mom knew about the shit Eric got up to then you can bet your ass his dad would learn about it too and that’d mean having to lie and cover himself and do damage control to save face any which way he could. Judy took Eric’s property away from him and drove off with it, which to a child like Eric who’s always been on the move and who’s always had no sense of object permanence because everything and everybody always leaves him can really be the gravest of wrongs. Eric was hinging on out of control not just because Brooks pissed him off by always being late and shooting his mouth off to people he shouldn’t and involving their parents for a spat that was really theirs alone and so on, not just because Judy took his things and didn’t give ‘em back right away and inserted herself into the narrative, but because he knew what the implications and ramifications of his outburst and his fight and his impulsive actions would be. I always taste fear on my tongue when I think about it, now – fear of coming home and facing the music, fear of having to compromise even though you knew you had a good point and you were not totally wrong about it, fear of having something good taken away because you’re a damaged little shit who can’t help but break stuff, fear of having your things be taken from you and not having anything in the world left for you to hold on to when things around you don’t make sense anymore.

Eric’s anger wasn’t just anger. It was fear, too, and it wasn’t the kind of fear that comes with “shit I hope nobody finds what’s inside my backpack”. It was the kind of fear that comes with “shit I’m going to have to walk on my toes for the next few months and pray I don’t step over any more lines or so help me god” coupled with a “I have nothing I am nothing”-mindset that comes from years of having people and things you’re attached to stripped away from you. The backpack was a symbolic thing that touched a deeper problem and struck a chord inside of Eric that neither Judy nor Brooks could’ve foreseen before he lost the plot and started screamin’ at them.

hahaha you’re welcome, glad i could provide some excitement and hopefully put a smile on your face! (that’s my goal everyday is to make at least ONE person smile hahaha)

Nice messages like yours never fail to put a smile on my face! I think that your goal is something more people should aspire to on a regular basis. Spreading kindness is what we need more of, always, so thank you for bringing it to my inbox! =)

Gun Control Laws

If there is anything left to say about gun control laws, let it be this.

Gun Control Laws

Happy Valentine’s Day! <3

Happy Valentine’s to you as well! =)

valentinaloveimagine:

Columbine High School massacre 

Who 

Hii absolutely adore your blog<3 thank for for always answering questions! And if you don’t kid I have a question if my own.. I read somewhere that Eric was raped??…. by Police something like that I was shocked like is that true

Hi, thanks for the compliment! (You have absolutely no idea how many questions in my inbox still remain unanswered.. One of these days, I hope to have successfully answered every single one. I might have to lock my askbox for a bit in that case, haha, but we’ll see!)

Eric was not raped by police. Some people have come to believe that Eric and/or Dylan were raped by their arresting officer during the van break-in debacle, which they say explains the raging hate-on they had toward cops later on. They cite one thing as conclusive evidence for that theory: a drawing Eric made that shows a situation drawing of where they had been in relation to the van and such. Apparently, some of Eric’s squiggles at the top left of that page read to some people as a drawing of him being raped. Which, quite frankly, just puzzles me because it doesn’t look like that at all to me (no, not even if I squint or tilt my head or anything) and I would think (given with what I know of Eric) that he would strongly internalise such an event at first because it made him feel weak and powerless and expressing the event in a drawing so shortly after it may have happened isn’t something I see him doing.

I made a post a while ago that may be of interest to you, as it shows the drawing I mentioned here and also goes a little deeper into the conspiracy theory attached to it. You may find that here. Suffice to say that this is one conspiracy I don’t buy into – thankfully for Eric and Dylan, nothing of the sort seems to have ever happened to them. =)

HIIIIII ( i’m the one who ‘yelled’ mama dragon LOL )

Hahaha, always appreciate a yell like that one! Thanks for the excitement!

Hello, do you think Eric wanted to really die?

Hi!

Absolutely, yes. There is no doubt in my mind that Eric really wanted to die. It’s just that Eric was a whole lot less obvious about his death wish than Dylan ever was, so to quite a lot of people it’s not really clear how suicidal Eric actually was.

That said, there are little breadcrumbs in the evidence that shine a small light on Eric’s desire to die. There is the admission in the diversion papers that he has contemplated suicide. What’s interesting about one of the mentions in the diversion papers is the phrasing “Eric says he has thought about suicide a couple of times, but never seriously, mostly out of anger”. One of the other mentions notes that he didn’t plan anything along those lines or think much about it, which I would say is accurate for Eric: suicide wasn’t something he routinely allowed himself to think about, but it burst out of him during anger/hurt/sadness every so often. One of the last mentions of Eric’s suicidality in the diversion documents actually comes from Eric’s parents. And yeah, I know, I’m as surprised as you – but the thing is, Eric’s parents just put a little checkmark next to the items Eric had discussed with his psychologist so that makes a little more sense already as to why they would be aware of Eric’s suicidal thoughts in the first place.

There are also mentions of Eric’s suicidality on the basement tapes. He talks about the ‘suicide plan’ and shows his diagrams/drawings of it to the camera. He comments “what you will find on my body in April” at one point. There is also the fact that Eric once faked his suicide to freak Tiffany Typher out back in freshman year, which seems a little extreme for the rejection he suffered but it’s something that came to his mind as a proper reaction to it all the same.

And then, well, then there’s the fact that Eric died first. He died first and he died brutally. I don’t know how many of you have ever thought about the way in which Eric killed himself, but I’ve always thought that it was one hell of an obliterating way to die. When you read the autopsy report, you really get a sense that he blew himself away. Like he was worth nothing, like he wanted to shut himself up, like he wanted to quiet his brain by blasting a bullet straight up through it.. It’s a remarkably confrontational way to die, but also a certain way to die. Most people who suffer that type of injury don’t survive it. Eric wanted to be sure of his own death. That kind of unflinching way to seek your own death.. That alone makes me very sure of the fact that Eric really wanted to die.

I’ve spoken about Eric’s suicide and inner emotional life quite often on this blog, but one of the posts I feel bears relevance to your question is this one right here. Suffice to say that Eric was just as suicidal as Dylan was, but that he didn’t express it easily and maybe even ignored it as much as he could. He wasn’t actively suicidal and didn’t yearn for death out loud, but it’s there between the lines of what he presented to the world and it is important.

MAMA DRAGON!!!!!!

YEAH HI WHAT’S UP?

You have brought me so much insight on Eric Harris & I’m going to protest how he wasn’t a “psychopath” with anyone who questions it for the rest of my life. I think you’re brave for running a Columbine blog (sometimes I wish I could as well but I don’t handle possible hatred & judgement well), & I also think you’re very sweet & a fluent writer, & your blog is the one I always keep coming back to if I need to search for something. ;) Take care, my friend!

This is honestly the best thing you could’ve said, omg!

Seriously, inspiring people to fight the status quo on Eric is my dream come true right there. I’m so grateful to hear that I gave you insight into who he may have been – that comment alone makes my blogging adventure worth it.

I can honestly tell you that running a Columbine blog like this one actually doesn’t open you up to hatred and judgment too much. I can almost count the amount of times I’ve gotten anon hate on one hand, and I’ve been blogging here for about four-and-a-half years now. I would like to think that the way I choose to talk about the case exempts me from the hatred/judgment to a degree, but to tell you the truth I don’t really know why I’ve had a relatively quiet blogging life so far. (Now watch all the hateful people go “wait, let’s bombard mama dragon’s inbox”, haha.. they’re welcome to, but somehow they never do.)

Thank you very much for your sweet compliments! Hope to be here for many more years to come. ❤ Take care!

Your assassination blog link isn’t working? :/

Nevermind! I tried to access it via your collection post but the sidebar link is working fine!
       
   

Yeah, haha, I’m sorry about that.. I’m glad I thought to update the sidebar link last night! I was able to snag myself a new url for that blog late yesterday evening, so I went from murder-and-lee to jfkassassination and rendered some of the older links to that blog useless because of it. Glad you were able to find the blog!