… 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?
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.
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.
… 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?
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.
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.