Well, there is *one very obvious* reason for remaining anonymous. It’s the best way to *maintain a story* and never be cross-examined, by asking other questions and seeing if what you’re saying is *consistent* with what you said at first. It’s always by follow-up questions to what you hear from someone that you’re able to tell if they are truthful.
When someone avoids “follow-up” — that usually means that they are hiding something. I would say that this is an indication of hiding something — probably the fact that the “presentation” of the story *is not true*.
NOW — let me give a “presentation” of the story with the same facts — and see if this is true. I’ll assume that the facts are true (just for sake of telling this) and I’ll present it in the first person from the standpoint of that surviving student.
The gunman came into the room and shot up several students, but I was uninjured. The gunman left and then came back later, apparently to see if any of the students survived the first shooting. I remained still and quiet, pretending to be dead. But, my classmate, Waleed Shalaan, was badly injured and appeared to move and maybe beg for mercy as the gunman was ready to shoot him again. And the gunman shot him dead.
I believe I — “... would have been shot dead were it not for Waleed’s “protective movement” that distracted the gunman.” [quote from article!!!]
I thank God’s providential hand was on me, by having the gunman notice that Waleed was still alive, and thus, his struggling movements, having been wounded, saved my life.
Now, why wouldn’t that be the story? Well, for one, the press doesn’t like to give God credit in — His providence. So, that would never make it into the story.
And — SECONDLY — here’s where it gets a bit “touchy”. You see..., one would not like to admit that a “flopping fish” (like my “bear example”) saved my life — although — it was probably just *exactly* a flopping fish that saved his life.
So, he (the student) doesn’t want to sound so crass and cruel as to make out that the dying student, in his “death throes”, involuntarily flopping, caught the attention of the shooter — and the shooter finishes him off.
Nope, that kind of story has *no media pizzaz* at all.
So, let’s add a little “heroics” — essential facts are the same — and let’s call this dead Muslim a “hero” for “saving my life.” Now, that sounds a little bit more “palatable” when I present the story. It makes me feel a little bit “better” that I was saved by his “conscious” action — rather than his “involuntary death throes”. Yep, I would feel *awfully guilty* if I was saved by the jerking around of a dying person....
Dying people, all around you, does funny things to your thinking. You try to justify things that were never there in the first place...
Regards,
Star Traveler
Sounds plausible...
And also consider this ..if the student was guilt-ridden (which unfortunate several will have “survivors guilt”) and went to Mr Dymond, (his advisor) his touchy-feely professor could have changed the “involuntary death throes” into a “conscious” action” to make the student feel better about himself, etc...
Then Mr Dymond took the new version to the Mom to make her “feel better” about her son’s death....
“Yep, I would feel *awfully guilty* if I was saved by the jerking around of a dying person....”
Curious statement ...
why should you feel guilty ? ... and of what ?
[... the gunman LEFT THE ROOM, then came back...]
1) Why didn’t uninjured anonymous try to escape when CHO LEFT THE ROOM? Is this Katrina syndrome?
2) Why didn’t uninjured anonymous try to help Waleed escape when CHO LEFT THE ROOM?
3) Why would uninjured anonymous want the world to know he didn’t have the sense to try to escape when CHO LEFT THE ROOM?