You were responding to — ““It’s even stated as a “belief” (indicating uncertainty there).”
And you said — “Correct - “A” is intelligent enough to know that he CANNOT know what might have happened if Waleed had not made his movement, unlike yourself who presume to have this certain knowledge.”
Here is what we *can know* about the uninjured student.
From the facts presented to us — that the killer returned two other times to look for any signs of life, and that the uninjured student played dead, so the killer would not know that he was alive, and that Waleed moved and was immediately shot and killed.
From this we can know that by playing dead the uninjured student saved his own life.
Anything else that he wants to “believe” outside of these facts, I guess he can use to assuage the kind of guilt that survivors find they have...
Regards,
Star Traveler
You appear to consider “playing dead” as a absolute, like if you simply “play dead” you are invisible.
You are not taking into account the second part -— that the shooter did not notice that you were PLAYING dead.
Obviously ANY distraction, like Waleeds movement kept the attention away from “A”.
Therefore we can take it as a FACT that the movement of Waleed, and the diversion of attention towards him and away from others in the room, was ABSOLUTLY a contributing factor in the survival of “A”.