• wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year 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
      1 year 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
        ·
        1 year 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
          1 year 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.