In this article Dymond doesn’t mention anything about an email.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/20/africa/ME-GEN-Egypt-Virginia-Tech-Shooting.php
Randy Dymond, a civil engineering professor, said Shaalan was credited with distracting gunman Cho Seung-Hui to save the life of a fellow student.
Dymond, who attended a service for Shaalan Thursday, said the Egyptian was in the first classroom Cho attacked and was badly wounded. Cho returned to the room twice to search for signs of life.
During one of those incidents, a second student who was uninjured, was playing dead. When Shaalan noticed Cho making a move to shoot the student, the Egyptian made a “protective movement to basically decoy the killer into thinking it was him making any kind of sound instead of the survivor,” Dymond said.
Dymond declined to give the name of the student who survived, but said the student wanted him to tell the story “so that the family of Waleed understands the sacrifice.”
You quoted — “During one of those incidents, a second student who was uninjured, was playing dead. When Shaalan noticed Cho making a move to shoot the student, the Egyptian made a “protective movement to basically decoy the killer into thinking it was him making any kind of sound instead of the survivor,” Dymond said.”
And then there was this one, quoted earlier —
“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.”
.
It’s, again and still — 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.
Note that in the first quote up above, it says that Waleed noticed that Cho was going for the anonymous student. It’s the same as always. The anonymous student is the target (in the “supposed story”)
In addition the “supposed story” is 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. The speculation and “premise” of the whole thing is that the anonymous student was the original target from which Waleed distracted him.
SO..., 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. It was apparent to the killer that Waleed was the one to be killed.
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 — that’s the “false premise” of the entire article, put in there just for making a “hero” out of nothing.
There was no one to save. Waleed simply killed himself by moving.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Here’s the *real problem* (not to say anything about the stories internal inconsistencies) —
Dymond declined to give the name of the student who survived, but said the student wanted him to tell the story “so that the family of Waleed understands the sacrifice.”
.
Essentially this is a Dan Rather type of story, where the document is fake, but the story is true.
And also, it’s like that reporter, who just made up “composite individuals” in his stories, because although a “real individual” did not exist — he could use a “literary individual” to *illustrate* his points. However, he did not say it was a “made up person” — he indicated the person was real.
What was his justification? Simply because part was true for Individual 1, and part was true for Individual 2, and another part was true for Individual 3 — therefore, I can combine all three individual’s bits and pieces and illustrate a “truth” to the public.
This sounds like a “literary device” — in constructing a make-believe student, who can’t answer questions, can’t be contacted, can’t be known — for the *express purpose* of relating a “truth” to the public.
What would that “truth” be? Well..., of course..., it would be that if a Jew can save some lives, then a Muslim can too — and the public should know this...
Regards,
Star Traveler