You said — “So it boils down to YOUR belief that it could not have possibly REALLY happened that way, and you create the yarn to fit your concept of what must be real.”
The clincher is — as I was saying — the fact that if the shooter was going after the “feigning-death student” — and all of a sudden Waleed waved his hand, the shooter would have shot Waleed and then shot the feigning student.
Since this did not happen, that shows the shooter was not going after the uninjured student.
The rest of it is simply using the facts as presented and piecing it together with that *fact* that the shooter did not shoot the uninjured student. And that, alone (not shooting him) is powerful evidence.
[it goes like this, head for the uninjured student, get ready to shoot, see Waleed, bang!, turn to uninjured student — bang! bang! — both dead — walk off]
Regards,
Star Traveler
“A” says he could see Waleed, and saw him get shot, so we know he had a sight-line for that, but there is no indication that he could see the shooter or vice-versa.
You say that “A” could misinterpret the “flopping around” as a protective movement - why then could the shooter not have misinterpreted a protective movement as a flopping around ?