You said — “Since reality and the eyewitness to the events agree why contradict them ?”
The only eyewitness was playing dead. He couldn’t be seen by the killer as being alive, so he wouldn’t be looking at the killer (see the “one of three scenarios repoeated above). Playing dead is what kept him alive.
And then, finally, the only eyewitness says that he ony “believed” that a “move” protected him. Of all the facts of the situation that we’ve been given — this one (the “move”) is the *only one* in which the eyewitness himself says “believed”. He thus admits that he does not know if Waleed was “flopping” or distracting the killer.
The clear point which is being made — was that the uninjured student was “saved” by Waleed’s actions.
Of course, one can’t be saved if the killer was never going to kill the uninjured student in the first place. The assumption made by the uninjured student (and his “belief”) is that he would have been killed otherwise.
To that the following is clear. If the killer was going to kill the uninjured student and he saw Waleed move — then it’s bang! to Waleed (since he moved) and then bang! bang! bang! (three shots) to the uninjured student who is now dead. That’s *if* he was going to kill the uninjured student and Waleed gave his “famous flop”...
But, on the other hand, with the uninjured student playing dead so effectively (which his present breathing proves) — then the killer did not see that the uninjured student was alive — however — he saw Waleed was alive by his “now famous” flop... So, it was bang! to Waleed. Now Waleed is dead and the uninjured student is alive.
So, either the killer was going for the uninjured student or the killer was not going for the uninjured student.
(1) He was going for the uninjured student, but Waleed flopped, bang! to Waleed, then bang! bang! bang! (three times) to the uninjured student (now dead).
(2) He was not going for the uninjured student, Waleed flopped, bang! to Waleed, then perceiving the uninjured student as dead (since he was a good actor), killer leaves once again.
One way — dead “uninjured student” — the other way live “uninjured student”. And, “either way” — flops make no difference.
Regards,
Star Traveler
“So, either the killer was going for the uninjured student or the killer was not going for the uninjured student.”
Neither since he did not know there WAS an undead student to “go for”. “A” is of the opinion that Waleeds action kept the shooter from realizing he was still alive, thereby keeping the shooter from “going for” him.
Excuse me, ST, did I miss something? Wasn’t this an “anonymous” email? Or do we now have the name of the witness?