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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Photographic evidence of said phone in a compromising position.
This is all evidence. There’s no refutation in the article. The only thing that is not there is some direct indicator of intent. It was enough to warrant a phone search and to dismiss him from work, and a clean search doesn’t mean dick by itself because intent to snag this kind of photo is also a punishable offence:
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.
“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.
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?
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.
You wanted the quote from the article. I gave you the quote from the article. Don’t go claiming “well the article might not be true” yadda yadda yadda. Don’t go changing the argument to something else after I showed you that you were wrong, dumbass.
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.
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.
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.
You mean like how they let him go after checking it wasn’t him?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Circumstantial evidence is not nothing dude.
This is all evidence. There’s no refutation in the article. The only thing that is not there is some direct indicator of intent. It was enough to warrant a phone search and to dismiss him from work, and a clean search doesn’t mean dick by itself because intent to snag this kind of photo is also a punishable offence:
18 U.S. Code § 2251 - Sexual exploitation of children See section (e)
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.
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.
If you read the article, it seems the phone was most definitely the flight attendants.
No it does not.
Quote me exactly where it says anything remotely close to this.
“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.
So a theory.
Lawyers presented a theory for why no images were found, and you take that as evidence?
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?
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.
You wanted the quote from the article. I gave you the quote from the article. Don’t go claiming “well the article might not be true” yadda yadda yadda. Don’t go changing the argument to something else after I showed you that you were wrong, dumbass.
Found the air attendant.
Your comment doesn’t even make sense unless you dropped a “/s”.