so I asked for it back, swiped up to see my most recent tabs and saw that he was looking through all my photographs from years ago.
but then:
I snatched the phone off the counter but he grabbed my arm and scratched me really hard.
So in between these 2 events, she put it back on the counter? I don't think so. First, the phone seems to be working when she looks up the history (why would she put it back?). Second, photos will not come up in the order they are looked up when they are stored in the picture file. Third, if the phone is obviously working, and she just felt emotionally violated, she would not let go of that phone again and put it back on the counter. But even if she did for a second, and then snatched it back, how was the person able to grab her arm (not hand, not finger, not anything that would be closer to him) and scratch her? Why would he even try grabbing her when she is the customer reaching for HER phone?
Thank you Martina, good spot. This also suggests that, while she did find him looking at her pictures (her most recent tab could have been the photo gallery) the outrage she felt is being exaggerated.
The only thing I'll add is that I always give some benefit of the doubt when using words from newspaper stories as the journalists and editors can and will change the order people tell their stories in and even the words used. The woman's version of events might not be in the timeline depicted in the article.
That is a possibility. But there are two instances of her retrieving the phone: I asked for it back and I snatched the phone off the counter. IMO, these are contradictory. She only needs to get the phone back once. I believe the first instance - that is what a customer would do. I believe the second instance was added for dramatic effect.
I find the order of events not convincing:
so I asked for it back, swiped up to see my most recent tabs and saw that he was looking through all my photographs from years ago.
but then:
I snatched the phone off the counter but he grabbed my arm and scratched me really hard.
So in between these 2 events, she put it back on the counter? I don't think so. First, the phone seems to be working when she looks up the history (why would she put it back?). Second, photos will not come up in the order they are looked up when they are stored in the picture file. Third, if the phone is obviously working, and she just felt emotionally violated, she would not let go of that phone again and put it back on the counter. But even if she did for a second, and then snatched it back, how was the person able to grab her arm (not hand, not finger, not anything that would be closer to him) and scratch her? Why would he even try grabbing her when she is the customer reaching for HER phone?
Thank you Martina, good spot. This also suggests that, while she did find him looking at her pictures (her most recent tab could have been the photo gallery) the outrage she felt is being exaggerated.
The only thing I'll add is that I always give some benefit of the doubt when using words from newspaper stories as the journalists and editors can and will change the order people tell their stories in and even the words used. The woman's version of events might not be in the timeline depicted in the article.
That is a possibility. But there are two instances of her retrieving the phone: I asked for it back and I snatched the phone off the counter. IMO, these are contradictory. She only needs to get the phone back once. I believe the first instance - that is what a customer would do. I believe the second instance was added for dramatic effect.
Given her multiple deceptive indicators, you’d get no argument from me.