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
However, as there were only two survivors from that
classroom who were uninjured, Dymond takes a huge
risk of being exposed, if all of this is invented.
Dymond may be the one artificially inserting himself
into this to feel more connected to the event.
Or... Dymond may be telling the truth.
We can’t know until someone speaks to Hixon and
Krause.