The one area where some accounts have varied is the scheduling mix-up story — the account of how she came to be on Flight 367 instead of the other Vesna. This is a story she told in multiple interviews, and it became one of the more widely circulated elements of the narrative. It is a story about a period before her amnesia began, so she would theoretically have memory of it — but the amnesia’s boundary is not precisely established, and “approximately an hour before the crash” is itself an approximation drawn from the medical reconstruction of her mental state. Whether her memory of the scheduling conversation is itself intact, or whether it is a reconstruction from what colleagues told her afterward, is not something that can be determined from the public record.
She spoke about survivor’s guilt with less frequency than she spoke about the crash itself. Journalists who interviewed her noted that she was more comfortable discussing the physical facts of the crash — the height, the injuries, the recovery — than she was discussing the psychological aftermath. The survivor’s guilt she carried — the question of why she lived when her colleagues and the passengers did not — was something she dealt with privately, through the religion she turned to and the personal framework she constructed. She did not expose it in detail to the media.
When she did speak about it, she was matter-of-fact. She did not consider her survival a divine gift in any narrow sense. She was not comfortable with the framing that made her lucky. She was aware, and stated explicitly, that her survival had come at the cost of twenty-seven deaths — and that no accounting that focused only on her survival could be complete.