“Do you have anything prohibited to carry in the cabin?“, the flight attendant asked the passenger when they were already settling for take-off. He was with his partner and was carrying a black, medium-sized suitcase with a tag attached. It was not understood why he had not sent the suitcase. “Yes, I carry a bomb”, was the angry response, heard not only by the crew, but by at least one passenger. Now, the owner of the answer, Jose Osvaldo Moyental, The 64-year-old, who works as a porter at Adrogué, was taken to court to decide whether he has been convicted of public intimidation and obstructing normal air traffic service, they said. infobae judicial resources.
It is that the mere suspicion that there might be a bomb at the airport stopped all air activity in the Federal Capital for almost four hours. Among those affected were four doctors from INCUCAI that they had to take the same flight to the “Padilla” hospital in San Miguel de Tucumán: they had a right kidney to be transplanted.
It all happened on September 15, when the passengers were already on board an Aerolíneas Argentinas plane, registration LV-GVE, parked at the Jorge Newbery Aeroparque apron, ready to start maneuvers for takeoff. flight N°1484 to the city of San Miguel de Tucumán.
You may be interested “I have a bomb on board”: the bad joke made by a passenger on a flight between Buenos Aires and Tucumán
Passengers had boarded the plane, and Moyental was one of them, but his suitcase should have gone to the shelter, according to the crew. When asked why it hadn’t been sent, the passenger said airline staff had put the tag on just in case, as he had arrived with little time to check-in and check-in properly. When asked if there were any items in his suitcase that were prohibited from being carried in the cabin, Moyental replied confused, “I HAVE A BOMB.”
The security protocol was immediately activated which stopped the airport activity from 12:20 to 15:57 for all air traffic that had to circulate through the Federal Capital. Together with the Airport Security Police, personnel from the Fire Department of the Federal Police of Argentina, Aeroparque Barracks, medical personnel from the Health Emergencies, cynotechnic police personnel and the Special Group for the Control of Explosives and Special Weapons (GEDEX); procedure that ultimately gave a NEGATIVE result in terms of the presence of explosive devices.
Meanwhile, the passenger has been detained. When asked by the judge Maria Eugenia Capuchetti and the prosecutor Carlos Rivolo, The man explained: “At first I had forgotten the documents in the van. When I went downstairs and went to check in, the lady accompanying me there told me that I couldn’t check in because my document was missing. I called my daughter to come back in the van with the document and, well, when I went back to check, she took my suitcase so I could get in it, so when I came back I saw her and she said ‘Well, look, here’s the ticket, hurry the plane is about to take off'”
“Then I will leave very soon, because the plane was about to take off and she had not sent it in the suitcase, it was in my wife’s possession,” he explained. When I’m in line at gate 14, the woman picks me up and tells me that we hadn’t checked my suitcase because it was still there. I ran again because I was very worried that I have a heart disease, I was hospitalized two months ago and I was the last one to get there. We did everything and left at 11:25 because the plane left at five to twelve.”
The man had issued a promotion of three tickets and justified himself by saying that he had paid an extra “because the three of us had chosen the seats together, because I suffer from hypertension; I go to the middle and I have half vertigo”, he explained to the justice officials.
He then went back to his version of what happened that day: the airline employee explained that one of the seats had already been assigned to someone else. “So I said to him, how come they just checked me, but he said ‘no, no, we already gave it to a kid.’ “Well, if it’s for a child, no problem,” I replied. But he tells me that hand luggage ‘must be taken in the cabin’. I say ‘no, stop, if you’re already getting my ticket and I say I can’t because I’m on medication’. There was a new complaint.
“So when we’re getting on the plane because there’s still time, the flight attendant is the one who walks up to me saying this suitcase has to go to the stand and I say no because I have the medicine and she says ‘because you have to have something that you can’t take it up here’ and I say ‘no, he put it on me just in case there was no room’… So I grabbed it and answered the flight attendant and I turned around and did the worst thing I could have done was mumble ‘the only thing left is to be accused of carrying a bomb’.
“These were the words I said. Y I can assure you that I feel very bad now because I have never had a case like this. One because of what people suffered because of me and another because I later found out they were carrying organs and one who has been fighting for his life for a long time and this makes me even worse because two people depended on me who could lose their lives and I hope that God wills that this does not happen,” he said in his statement.
The man ended up being prosecuted and the investigation ended. “There is no doubt that saying out loud that there was a bomb on the plane could not automatically trigger the deployment of the aforementioned forces and services to protect the safety of the people at large. Which, therefore, meant in itself the impact on the mood of the passengers, in addition to what it could generate in the police and judicial personnel, who became aware of what happened”, said the Federal Chamber when it confirmed the prosecution, beyond this passenger. in fact there never was a bomb.
“It has been fully established, therefore, that Moyental’s conduct violated the normal circulation of the air transport service, which was clearly impeded, simply and exclusively as a consequence of his actions. In short, there is no doubt that the delay in taking off the plane turned out to be a direct consequence of the defendant’s statements, which, as seen, motivated the implementation of the relevant protocol for the threat of an explosive device. ”, declared Rívolo in his opinion on the trial.
The prosecutor noted the situation of the doctors of Incucai in addition to the economic damage of Aerolíneas Argentinas, which according to hard estimates is estimated at 7072 dollars. “By this I mean that, beyond the accreditation of the typical requests of the above-mentioned criminal types and attributed in the procedure to José Osvaldo Moyental, when I judge his behavior, the serious consequences arising from this and that, even though it was not expected that the defendant to represent such a situation in particular, the smallest common sense shows that a statement like the one he made, in the context already mentioned, could not be in any way harmless”, he emphasized. The opinion with him which he agreed with. infobae.
“From the actions, there is no reason for justification that allows the exclusion of the illegality of the investigated crime, nor any reason that eliminates their responsibility for the fact and guilt”.
Continue reading:
‘Given a correction when he screwed up’: the outrageous excuses of those accused of murdering Lucio Dupuy