Do we know any of the timestamps (or other times) of the email? And how do they compare with published accounts?
Slate has text messages between.
This whole article is FASCINATING.
http://www.slate.com/id/2164428/
The Farkers find a site where they can listen to the police scanner, and they post e-mails and news stories when they hear or read them. They worry about the message board’s inevitable descent into a gun-control flame war and warn about not overwhelming the Virginia Tech Web servers. Then, at 4:03 p.m., this IM session appears in a post:
[15:38] a: i know 3 of the people that were killed so far....everything is just to unreal
15:38] b: wow man, i am sorry
[15:38] b: were they seniors
[15:38] b: what have u heard has happened
[15:38] a: They were grad students
[15:38] b: damn man, again i am sorry, my thoughts and prayers are for them and their families and friends
[15:38] a: yea me to
[15:38] a: well a guy in my design group for land development. ( lee hixon is a grad student..) he lived
[15:38] a: he was in the room where the guy killed everyone
[15:38] a: the guy shot at him 4 times and missed
[15:39] a: he fell to the ground and played dead
[15:39] a: but he lived..
[15:39] a: he said some of the names to me who died...he said the whole class was killed except him and one other guy
[15:39] b: wow, what class was it?
[15:39] a: Graduate Class for Advanced Hydrology
[15:39] b: thats nuts man, i cant fathum what he was going through
[15:39] a: he is so shooken up
[15:39] a: when he called me, i thought he was joking
[15:39] a: he was so hysterical
[15:39] a: he said blood was everywhere and all over him
[15:39] a: he said bullet holes were all in the walls and desks...
[15:39] a: he said he thought he was dreaming
[15:39] a: he had bullets fly and miss him
[15:39] b: damn man, i dont know what to say, i just feel for everyone involed
[15:39] a: yea same here
[15:39] a: im glad you are ok though
[15:39] a: i just talked to eddie
[15:39] a: and he said him and walter are ok
[15:39] b: cool
[15:39] a: ok well im going to go for now...but i will talk to you later man...ill talk to you
later if i hear anything else
[15:39] b: cool, later man
You asked — “Do we know any of the timestamps (or other times) of the email? And how do they compare with published accounts?”
We don’t know the time stamp. We don’t know if the e-mail exists. We don’t know if the professor was hoaxed. We don’t know if the professor is perpetrating a hoax. We don’t know if the student exists. We don’t know (in the event a student like that exists) if the student said such a thing. We don’t know if the student’s comment is being portrayed and conveyed correctly.
We don’t know if the “belief” that is stated from that “anonymous student” will be backed up today, if he were to speak.
In fact, if we were to take just the story (and for discussion pretend that it’s true) we can dismiss the student’s “belief” just from that story — itself.
Here’s a quote from an article here —
“On the morning of the attack, the gunman came back to Mr. Shaalan’s classroom twice. On one return, he noticed an unharmed student lying next to Mr. Shaalan, who had been hit and was badly injured. As the gunman approached that student, Mr. Shaalan moved to distract him and was shot again.”
http://chronicle.com/news/profiles
It’s the same problem I saw *immediately* from the start, with this story.
Basically, supposing if the shooter goes for the anonymous student (as the article says) and then Waleed moves or distracts him or whatever — then Waleed gets shot.
This is the “supposed story” being that it’s a “belief” of the student. But in analysis this particular event, we see it *cannot* have happened this way.
Note the article above. It says the shooter notices the unharmed student (the anonymous student). This is the part which is the speculation in the article, you’ll see why.
Supposing the shooter notices the anonymous student and Waleed *distracts* shooter — and Waleed gets shot. Since the shooter was originally noticing the anonymous student, after he shoots Waleed, he’s going to shoot the anonymous student. BUT — the shooter didn’t. This puts the “lie” to the “supposition” that the shooter was going for, or noticed the anonymous student. He never did. He thought the anonymous student was dead.
The shooter only saw Waleed move.
So, this is the scenario that fits the facts of the circumstances. The anonymous student is playing dead (and the shooter thinks so) and then Waleed moves, the shooter is going to kill Waleed, but he’s not going to go for the anonymous student because the killer always thought he was dead. Waleed then gets shot and killed; the anonymous student is still playing dead; the killer still thinks the anonymous student is dead. The killer moves on.
That’s the basic problem with this whole story — right there. That *proves* beyond all doubt that Waleed could have *never* distracted the shooter, because the shooter would simply go right back to the anonymous student and kill him, too.
Thus, the shooter was never going after the anonymous student. There was no one to save. Waleed simply killed himself by moving.
Regards,
Star Traveler