Replies

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