• Deceptichum@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    No, you gave me a quote that doesn’t back-up your claim.

    If you read the article, it seems the phone was most definitely the flight attendants.

    If you read the article, the only link between the phone in the seat and the one in the attendants position is the suggestion of a third party lawyer.

    No where is a definitive claim laid out that they are the same phone.

    Is it so hard for you people to stop trying to ruin innocent people’s lives with your witch hunt?

    • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      The guys phone was taped to the seat, thats not even being questioned

      The only thing in question is if there were photos on the phone that was taped to the seat, a phone which he said belongs to him.

      • Deceptichum@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Who do you expect to question it?

        Who else has the journalist spoken to other than comments from the family’s lawyer?

        • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          The guy being accused.

          If it wasnt his phone, he would immediately clear himself by saying “hey boss, my phone is right here in my hand, the kid is lying about that being my phone, mine was never in that bathroom.”

          The phone was, as reported by the FBI, given back to the man being accused before they asked him to let them look at the photo gallery.

          If it wasnt his phone, they wouldnt have given it to him in the first place. Very easy way to clear his name, when the girl accused him on the plane.

          • Deceptichum@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            How do you know that’s not what happened?!

            You are literally taking one sides story at face value and using the lack of something being reported as damning evidence.

            And it was not reported by the fucking FBI, it was the family that said the FBI cleared him. The FBI has announced nothing and you believe they have because you’re trying to justify blaming an innocent person.

            • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              … Because the guy was removed from working, and american airlines wouldnt let people openly think they hired a pedophile if they immediately proved he wasnt a pedophile on the plane?

              Think that through for a second dude, why would the company risk their name being dragged through the mud in a lawsuit if, while the plane was literally still in the air, multiple eye witnesses could confirm and corroberate that the accused employee immediately showed that his phone had not entered the bathroom?

              • Deceptichum@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                Anyone would be stood down from the job after an allegation like that. It’s standard practice, it means nothing.

                Think about man, why would a company risk talking about an ongoing legal case with the media. They send them the canned statement “we take this seriously blah blah blah” and that’s it.

                You think the P.R. Team has more sway than the companies law firm?

                Just because something was not said, does not mean it’s because it must be true.

                • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  They wouldnt talk to the media at all, they would kill this dead and deader before the kid or her dad could talk to a lawyer.

                  You arent understanding what I am saying. You are claiming that this man is being framed by either the girl, or her dad, for some alterior motive. If he could immediately prove the phone wasnt his, and that he was being set up, the airline would pull so many legal strings around their neck they wouldnt even risk making this into news.

                  Like. You grok what happens if this is proven false, yes? The airline will legally destroy this family for risking their name becoming the pedo plane people. They do not want this news article to exist. They have already lost major ground because this exists.

                  If they could have killed this before the public learned about it, they would. If they could prove the man was innocent, they would have made the girls lawyer understand this was a losing battle. And by losing, I mean losing money.

                  The fact that the lawyer took it to the news implies that they dont have much evidence to go on, and want a ton of public pressure on the airline. Probably for a data scrub of the phone. But the fact that they were capable of taking it to the news means the airline couldnt prove innocence and nip this in the bud.