4 ms·

The narrative around that is crystal clear. He filed a police report, and when the police went to Uber they gave incorrect information. They cooperated exactly

The narrative around that is crystal clear. He filed a police report, and when the police went to Uber they gave incorrect information. They cooperated exactly like an accomplice giving a false alibi, actually.

hsod 9y ago
Is it? "It was later asserted that they reached out to the police detective to clear this up. They found the information and tried to contact the detective with all the information." "If you are curious as to when this happened, it was April 9th. Uber did everything in their power to make the investigation successful and cooperate with the detective, on April 9th, 2017, four months after the incident. They also only reached out to the detective with the correct information once they were caught obstructing the investigation." How exactly did Uber obstruct the investigation? What incorrect information did they give? Maybe I'm thick, but it's not clear to me at all from the article.
- FireBeyond 9y ago
  Because it meant that the narrative at the first trial was that he was making it up. "Awfully fishy how you have all this evidence of the existence of something and then it was immediately stolen", "and we don't even have a record of a trip or driver matching that". Which lead to them only being found 50% liable the first time.
  - hsod 9y ago
    That's not true at all, in the narrative of the first trial the author makes it very clear that Uber did not deny that the trip or theft happened: "The one good thing that he did was he did not deny the contents or existence of my backpack." "One point the Uber rep gave was that I should have heard the car driving away and chased after him." "The Uber representative said that their drivers are independent contractors and as such, they are not responsible for making sure that they respond to any phone calls, and actually had zero control over what they do." "Uber said that the driver had a good standing, but was very evasive when asked if he had taken any more trips that night. The Clerk made him answer that there was only one more ride given. This alluded to the possibility that the other passenger could have taken the bag from the backseat."
    - jldugger 9y ago
      Wonder if the other passenger was also stolen from, which would have led Uber to amend a report after the hearing.

hsod 9y ago

Is it? "It was later asserted that they reached out to the police detective to clear this up. They found the information and tried to contact the detective with all the information." "If you are curious as to when this happened, it was April 9th. Uber did everything in their power to make the investigation successful and cooperate with the detective, on April 9th, 2017, four months after the incident. They also only reached out to the detective with the correct information once they were caught obstructing the investigation." How exactly did Uber obstruct the investigation? What incorrect information did they give? Maybe I'm thick, but it's not clear to me at all from the article.

FireBeyond 9y ago
Because it meant that the narrative at the first trial was that he was making it up. "Awfully fishy how you have all this evidence of the existence of something and then it was immediately stolen", "and we don't even have a record of a trip or driver matching that". Which lead to them only being found 50% liable the first time.
- hsod 9y ago
  That's not true at all, in the narrative of the first trial the author makes it very clear that Uber did not deny that the trip or theft happened: "The one good thing that he did was he did not deny the contents or existence of my backpack." "One point the Uber rep gave was that I should have heard the car driving away and chased after him." "The Uber representative said that their drivers are independent contractors and as such, they are not responsible for making sure that they respond to any phone calls, and actually had zero control over what they do." "Uber said that the driver had a good standing, but was very evasive when asked if he had taken any more trips that night. The Clerk made him answer that there was only one more ride given. This alluded to the possibility that the other passenger could have taken the bag from the backseat."
  - jldugger 9y ago
    Wonder if the other passenger was also stolen from, which would have led Uber to amend a report after the hearing.