• GFGJewbacca@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    124
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Lawyers for the 14-year-old and her parents say that American “knew or should have known the flight attendant was a danger.” They say the failure of other crew members to confiscate the employee’s phone allowed him to destroy evidence.

    Well that’s pretty damning. Makes me wonder how many other times this flight attendant has done this.

    • Deceptichum@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      77
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Tf?

      Do you see that image, look how fucking visible the flash is and it’s in the dead centre of the seat. No way a 14 year old would not see that giant arse phone stickers to the lid.

      Also

      The family said an FBI agent later told the girl’s mother they did not arrest the man because they did not find any incriminating images on his phone.

      Innocent until proven guilty, and allegedly he’s been cleared by the FBI. Yet you’re here acting like he’s guilty, has a history of this, and should never have been hired.

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        41
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ummmm Was that an employee’s phone taped to the toilet seat? Criminals being unbelievably bad at crime is not a defense. The FBI can’t arrest somebody without evidence, but nobody is claiming that they didn’t tape a phone to a toilet seat.

      • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        40
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Of course! Let’s consider the following extremely reasonable options:

        • The attendant accidentally left his phone in the bathroom (with the flash on, or no passcode so a malicious 14 yo could turn it on). Kid goes in the bathroom and hatches a plot. Peels the sticker perfectly off broken seat lid, attaches the phone, and takes a picture of it.

        • Same as above, but the girl finds a pad of the stickers and a sharpie also left on the bathroom, thereby removing the need to peel. OR she carries her own pad of the united broken stickers and a sharpie.

        • The kid pickpockets his phone on the way by and either of the options above. Roll for dexterity!

        • The bathroom was so dark at the start of the flight, our good Samaritan flight attendant tapes a phone with the light on under a broken sticker (even though it’s fine to use) and writes seat broken on it just so everyone is aware anyway. Everyone can now see and doesn’t fall in.

        All completely sane and reasonable alternatives to assuming an unnamed individual (who is not getting publicly maligned because he’s unidentified) was trying to add kiddie fun bits to his spank bank.

        • Deceptichum@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Or it’s a parents phone, staged for a photo being why nothing was found on the accused’s, not that anything was ever taken.

          • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            In which case there is no traction for police or anyone else and this doesn’t become an article. Flight attendant says “no my phone is right here” and it’s all done. This theory doesn’t hold water.

              • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s not what the article says. It says 1) they didn’t confiscate the phone after the incident, and 2) there were no pictures when they later checked.

                He was not detained because there were no pictures on the phone. Luckily there is no feature in a phone that lets you remove videos or photos once taken, otherwise his innocence beyond reasonable doubt might be questioned.

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

                  Mate.

                  Deleting a photo off your phone does not wipe the data, they can recover that in seconds after plugging your phone in and copying all the data which is frequently done at airports.

          • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            That one would be easily refuted by the other flight attendents since the complaint claims he was given his phone back. One assumes no one is refuting his phone was in the bathroom at least.

            • Deceptichum@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              And did anyone ask them to back up the claim for the news article?

              We don’t even have one sides story let alone others involved in it.

          • ColeSloth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

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

              • ColeSloth
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                “Lawyers for the family suggested that the flight attendant removed the phone and erased images of the girl before letting her father see his iPhone photos.”

                There’s another spot as well mentioning the father taking the phone from him, but some crap ad is keeping the text covered up. So yes. It says the guy got the phone back and then the dad demanded to see his pictures on his phone.

                • Deceptichum@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  So a theory.

                  Lawyers presented a theory for why no images were found, and you take that as evidence?

      • MNByChoice@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        Seems to be a civil lawsuit, so the standards are different. The investigation is also ongoing. Obtaining the photos is unlikely the only crime. Attempting to obtain the photos is also likely a crime. The FBI agent is not the judge of what is our is not illegal.

        The flight attendant was not identified. They are not getting paid, but that is fully different than being punished for a crime (still has a negative impact on them.)

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Ah, about destroying evidence - last I checked, it’s not as simple as just deleting stuff. So (if investigators get their hands on the actual phone, if they get a decent digital forensics expert, if Apple cooperates maybe) there’ll be evidence of both the root crime and the crime of trying to conceal it.

  • Stuka@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    How exactly is one supposed to just know someone’s a criminal? And what do they think the flight attendants job description is?

    Throw the guy in jail, terrible it happened. But I dont see how they’re gonna get anywhere in that lawsuit

      • RippleEffect@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Innocent until proven guilty only applies in the courts. For everywhere else, it seems to be guilty until proven innocent, and sometimes still guilty despite proof.

      • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The whole point of the lawsuit is that they couldn’t find evidence because the other flight attendants gave him his phone back after he’d been caught. They’re suing because he committed an obvious offense against a minor, and the employees didn’t take the accusation seriously enough not to let evidence get destroyed.

        The criminal case may be a lost cause now, but the evidence we do have is pretty damning and does warrant a lawsuit against the company that enabled what happened.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      If I hadn’t read what the photo is about, I would think it’s just a notice that the seat should not be used as it’s, eh, “broken” as written, and the phone with the light is there as an additional joke. But whatever.

  • June@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Seems pretty damning assuming the girl’s story is true.