Again ...the two hours is very clearly explained and well documented in the Complaint. You should read it. Or, you can continue posting about things you don't really understand. Your choice.

 

I’m not making a judgment on the case. I’m just making a point about how phones sometimes update the time to nearby locations in a different time zone.

This is my first post on this topic. Not sure why all the hostility.

 

So were she working now?

 

Empire Airlines :: Ohana

Direct entry captain.......

 

I was really trying to believe her but now after reading both complaints I have to say that I believe him.

His story is comparatively very logical. We drank, I got drunk, I barely remember anything. I shouldn’t have been drinking so close o the window, I entered HIMS did my thing, etc.

Her story is essentially that I was drugged because I hold my liquor better than that. I know I was raped because my panties were in my purse. Say what?

This is a civil suite so the burden of proof is only a “perponderance of the evidence” so I think he has a really good shot at winning. What I would do is settle with everybody else in monetary terms. Then go all the way to trial against her.

 

Exactly. And she does not hold her liquor better than that, as evidenced by her drunken blackout episode on the Kauai overnight and as we learned, that her callsign in the Army was "Bob", short for Blackout Betty".

 

Why? Sincere and honest question, just curious. Your rational observations and leanings are logical, yet there was the inclination to 'try to believe'; this appears to be shared by many so you're not the lone ranger, just wondering why. Not trying to be confrontational.

 

When the story initially broke, my thoughts were that he showed poor judgement, at best. I suspected the company had justification to terminate him with factual evidence of drinking already discovered, however, the rape charges were another story. The criminal allegations FO Pina had made were suspect as an internal investigation had been conducted and both were approved to return to flying status. Unlike the luxury of the Seattle press to mindlessly rule in favor of whatever agenda sells newspapers, the company made a conscious decision, presumably based on an investigation thorough enough to cover their liability, to retain both. That says a lot.

For her part, had FO Pina come forward or filed a police report without her employment being threatened (motive), her account would have been more credible.

Like most, I try to wait and listen to both sides because I've learned, the hard way, that things aren't always as they appear. This story built upon itself as one side was allowed to espouse their story through the press and #metoo while the other was barred from defending themselves publicly, no doubt agonizing given the media firestorm they faced.

While I'm glad there appears to be a re-evaluation of the case based on his version and her subsequent repeated drunken behavior and 'resignation', I'm curious as to why her story was initially deemed so credible, given the clear motive and lack of evidence(?)

We continue to suffer this same theme being played out on a national scale. Sexual assault/harrasment is a powerful tool and has been successfully employed in the workplace as a 'get out of jail free card' or for financial benefit. To automatically assume truth or jump to conclusions because of a hyper-activist, populist movement only worsens the condition. While we justifiably want to 'believe the survivors', the actual victims of sexual assault are paying the price when we rush to judgement of the accused without allowing for testimony and fact-finding. Pre-judging creates another set of victims: the falsely accused.

 

I'd say that her motive might not have been obvious to those outside aviation. We read the article, and 2 things that pop out immediately, even though they are not explicitly stated are: "New hire in probationary period" and "investigation into drinking within the window" and for us, the significance of that is obvious it's not a bit leap to: " she knows she's toast and it's an act of desperation to save her job." Someone outside of the industry likely isn't going to recognize that she's in imminent danger of losing her job.

 

x2.

I initially gave her the benefit, assuming nobody would go there lightly.

Now looks to me like PE is the victim, although he certainly put himself into a position, right up to the edge of the envelope, where things could (and did) go horribly wrong.