"She was more hurt." A light phrase that can have several interpretations when a couple is finished. It can be perceived as "objective", if the person who says it was the one who decided to cut the relationship. Or as a "clarification", if it is pronounced while testifying as a witness in a case in which the accused is the other party.
In the midst of the "Turkish novel" that seems to have become the life of Daniela Carbone, the Aerolineas Argentinas stewardess arrested for the bomb threat to a plane going to Miami, the phrase becomes much more than a story of heartbreak.
It is the strongest point among the statements that the ex-boyfriend of the detainee, who also works in Aerolineas Argentinas, declared in Justice. Carbone, meanwhile, refused to testify before federal judge Federico Villena, who is investigating the threats.
Why does the opening phrase carry weight? Because the investigators, when they found the location from where the intimidating voice messages came and noticed that Carbone had sent them to the commander of the plane and other co-workers from the cell phone of his daughter Daniela, also a stewardess but from another airline, began to look for "the motivation" behind a "pause" that cost Airlines a million dollars.
Something that explains (not justifies) why the woman, with extensive experience in the company, would decide to mess with the No. 1 contingency of every airport.
Why in an audio with a distorted voice -- thanks to a program she Googled -- she would say this: "Tell the captain that we put three bombs in Miami [sic]. Stop fucking with politics and check the plane because they're going to blow up in a thousand pieces."
When the case moves forward and all the evidence is presented (which for the moment is "under summary secrecy" and no details can be released) Judge Villena will know well the beginning and end of this plot.
It will be known if the separation led the woman to adopt the role of an amateur terrorist so that that flight never takes off and a love encounter in the United States with another woman other than her is aborted. Something that, for the moment, is only a cabin rumor. Another rumor: that actually the new girlfriend of the flight attendant's ex was traveling with him on that flight.
The leitmotif is in standby mode for now. And, again, it is not morbid, it is part of the investigation, for the consequent guilt or acquittal of the accused.
What is clear so far is that Villena will make the flight attendant face charges of "public intimidation" and "obstruction of public services", in addition to "aggravated coercion".
The statement of the former
Meanwhile, his former partner (he will reserve his identity because he is not a suspect in the case) gave more details about his relationship with the flight attendant.
"It was a normal flight and day until ten minutes before takeoff," started "the ex", who said he was "very bad" to give details.
He added that "there was an announcement from the commander, Diego Perez Bariggi," while he was behind it all. He said he noticed something was wrong because the doors of the aircraft had not yet closed, and that he learned everything when "the commander made a general announcement through an open microphone, informing that they had received a bomb threat and that they should wait for instructions."
He also commented that, in general, when events of this nature occur, "airport personnel must send the aircraft to a remote area to avoid a greater evil." And that he went to tour the passenger cabin, "to show his face at that moment." As he specified, he was not in the sector that corresponded to him and that is why he went to his, "gate 3L of the plane", where he should stay.
He always stated that he did not understand why the plane was not moving to a remote area or why the order to evacuate the passengers had not yet been given; and that this happened after "a long time". In total it was an hour of waiting. "It was a time of uncertainty," he said.
After the evacuation, the active time of that crew expired, which meant that those same workers could not perform the flight that had been interrupted by the threat. He stayed at the airport and took the opportunity to process the passport, which was delivered to him in 40 minutes. He had lunch there and went home.
His statement was testimonial. He is not accused of anything. In his statements he said that "he has no idea about the perpetrators of the act", that "they may be political issues", but not "for personal reasons", for example, "because the girlfriend of a passenger does not want him to leave the country".
To questions from the Court, he replied that he understood that "a message arrived to the captain and a line of operations at the airport", but that he did not hear or see the intimidating message. He said he did not know the phone number that was used to make the message and that he does not have it scheduled on a cell phone.
Of course, he confirmed that he knows Carbone and that he is his ex. He also said that he knows her daughter, Candelaria Olivera, and that days ago he left her some books in the guard of the country where he lives with his mother. And he gave more important details about the separation. Like they've been separated for two months and he doesn't currently talk to her.
He said exactly that they haven't spoken for a month. That it was "a separation" and the phrase: "She was more hurt." The relationship lasted five years and they have no children together. Something else: he said he can't imagine Daniela "capable of something like that."
He also claimed to be an acquaintance, not a friend, of the threatened commander and that, as far as he knows, his ex was not a friend of the pilot either. Regarding the rest of the crew of that flight, he said that during the five years of relationship he did not notice that his ex was friends with any of those crew members.
He also clarified that in the days before the threat there was no discussion with Daniela, who has been commissioner on board for 25 years.
In addition to the criminal consequences, Aerolineas Argentinas has already slipped that they analyze sanctioning the stewardess with a measure "proportional to the seriousness of the fact."