• Deceptichum@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    76
    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.

                • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I would agree with you except it says the father was shown no pictures and later that the FBI didn’t arrest him. What it doesn’t say is the duration in between dad and FBI. There is not some permanent record of deleted files in your iPhone if you keep using it and it’s not confiscated. It doesn’t read like authorities picked the FA up at the stop, but more like this is a protracted dispute.

                  Even if no pictures in the first place it’s still suspicious AF and the sort of thing I would expect to receive a special visit by Chris Hansen.

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

                    No.

                    It is not suspicious at, the accused has done literally nothing wrong.

                    All they have is a claim leveled against them with nothing to support it.

                    Stop judging innocent people based on nothing.

            • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              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?

                • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Jesus christ, man. The article literally says he made the Steward show the pictures on his phone. Did you fail reading comprehension back in grade school?

                  • Deceptichum@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    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.

                    That does not say the phone was most definitely his in any way, shape, or form.

                    For all you know the father demanded to look at his phone, he let him, the father found nothing and claimed he must’ve taken the phone back and deleted the photos. That does not prove fucking shit, it’s one sides story that is so far not backed up by any evidence.

        • 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.

    • 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.)