4 ms·

A lot of good points, but not all of them feel valid. > not known by the security staff. They may just not care, or at least not make that a priority. If the

A lot of good points, but not all of them feel valid. > not known by the security staff. They may just not care, or at least not make that a priority. If the dongle stuff was done just to comply to some norm or regulation, actual security could be perceived to be secondary. > The writer already assumes that we think he is lying. Not quite. He assumes we think he could be mistaken. ("[…] it could be conceivable […] that, in my grief, I remotely logged in, sent the email and forgot I did it"). Still a bit fishy, but not as much as you make it sound. > is it very likely not to check your email at least just before you show up at work 6 weeks later? That can be estimated, but not that if it were me, that would be a virtual certainty. I never check my work email outside of work. I go to work first, then I check my email. > It is a throwaway account. Of course it is. One does not want to tie a long term account (which may be tied to a meat-space identity) with negative stuff like that. The evidence by throwaway is practically nil.

mseebach 9y ago
> > The writer already assumes that we think he is lying. > Not quite. He assumes we think he could be mistaken. ("[…] it could be conceivable […] that, in my grief, I remotely logged in, sent the email and forgot I did it"). Still a bit fishy, but not as much as you make it sound. Not quite assuming that we think he's lying, but a very common tell for lies is that the lier is preempting challenges to weak points in the story. A lot hinges on his location and the exact job, but it smells very fishy that he apparently is set up for remote access to email (so it sounds like a "regular" knowledge worker job where checking your email from not-the-office at times is not uncommon), but when leaving very suddenly, ie. with no time to hand over work to colleagues, as you'd normally do for planned leave, he wouldn't bring the dongle with him, to be able to check in and make sure his colleagues have what they need to move on without him.

mseebach 9y ago

> > The writer already assumes that we think he is lying. > Not quite. He assumes we think he could be mistaken. ("[…] it could be conceivable […] that, in my grief, I remotely logged in, sent the email and forgot I did it"). Still a bit fishy, but not as much as you make it sound. Not quite assuming that we think he's lying, but a very common tell for lies is that the lier is preempting challenges to weak points in the story. A lot hinges on his location and the exact job, but it smells very fishy that he apparently is set up for remote access to email (so it sounds like a "regular" knowledge worker job where checking your email from not-the-office at times is not uncommon), but when leaving very suddenly, ie. with no time to hand over work to colleagues, as you'd normally do for planned leave, he wouldn't bring the dongle with him, to be able to check in and make sure his colleagues have what they need to move on without him.