Hacker News Reader

Comment by mrtksn | Hacker News Reader

How do you explain his decision to enter Lebanon openly, exposing his plane, therefore exposing the route and the people involved when not exposing the people who organised all this? Why he did not enter Lebanon in the same box he left Japan?

I am pretty sure that Ghosn is intelligent enough to know that as soon as he exposes his route of escape, the people involved in the operation will be exposed. He chooses to expose these when protecting the people he paid.

Was Carlos assuming that the security contractor works for the money and likes being not in jail just like him but airline personnel would do illegal things as part of the rent contract and not having problems with being exposed?

View on HN

My point is - is it possible that he is directly responsible for the airplane guy going to prison? Possibly, but we don't know.

Presumption of innocence is important.

Example: there's a locally well known actor where I live that was accused of having child porn on his computer a few months ago. The press obviously jumped all over that and he was plastered over all the front pages. Fast forward two months and it's actually looking like he isn't actually guilty and won't be dragged into court. The result for him however is that he's broke, got no more acting gigs and his kids are bullied in school.

Bad result. Because people didn't assume he's innocent until PROVEN guilty. I'd be 100% happy to trade off some exec that steals money from a company getting to skip jail for nobody who's innocent ever ending up in jail.

This is not a court of law, the public opinion is formed from the info available to us and we form our opinions based on our understanding. This is O.K. because we do not put people in prison.

For example, it was O.K. to think that Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos a fraud and express this opinion well before the court decided that.

Therefore I think this is not a glorious story of an innocent CEO persecuted by the baddies, I laid out my reasons for that. You are free to think otherwise but if you want to participate in the discussion you are expected to build up your position and defend it. "Let's wait for the court decision" is not a good argument, especially when a subject is a person who runs from a court decision.

"For example, it was O.K. to think that Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos a fraud and express this opinion well before the court decided that."

That's the part I don't agree with. I don't think it's fair.

It's also unlikely that I'll be able to change your mind on this matter or that you'll be able to change mine during the course of a few comments on HN, so we can agree to disagree :)

> the people involved in the operation will be exposed. He chooses to expose these when protecting the people he paid.

He didn't, these facts are the result of an investigation

Obviously, if you use a registered plane and expose that plane by entering a country with your own identity you are choosing to expose people associated with the plane. If he attempted to conceal his method of transportation, for example entering Lebanon the way he exited Japan, then we would have had a case to argue that he did not choose to expose the people who helped him.

If you insist, we can rephrase it as "He didn't try to hide the identities of the logistic personnel as he hid the people who organised the operation".

It is a very strong clue that they were not from the same team, in sense of willingness and contract.

> if you use a registered plane

What is an "unregistered plane"? Not even the US military has that (except maybe for very specific experimental aircraft and even then).

> for example entering Lebanon the way he exited Japan

That's the reason for the stopover in Turkey. Anything else is spy movie territory.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com