Response re. George Smith's Disappearance

[Sky Sweet]

My husband and I are married for almost 38 years and when we cruise, I always know where he's sleeping. Additionally, I have never been found sleeping in a hallway.

 

There's a lot more going on here than the Smith family is willing to admit. They act like Jennifer and George bear absolutely no responsibility for anything that may have happened on the ship.

 

I'm reminded of the movie "Titanic" where Leonardo DiCaprio is hanging off of the bow of the ship being the "king". Fortunately, he did not fall off - nor was he drunk at the time. Has anyone else thought about this scenario?

 

Hi Bubbie :p

 

I agree with everything in your post. Maybe I am wrong, but I feel that Jennifer knows a lot more than she is saying, and is motivated by greed, as well as a cover up.

[Barry ATL]

My husband and I are married for almost 38 years and when we cruise, I always know where he's sleeping. Additionally, I have never been found sleeping in a hallway.

 

I have not slept in a hallway since 1981. I was in a fraternity at our national convention in New Orleans. We stayed at the Fairmont Hotel. I had four Hurricanes in about 20 minutes .... I thought they were big glasses of punch .... One of my fraternity brothers woke me up around 5 AM. I was sleeping in the corner of the hotel elevator going up and down all night. :D

[canderson]

No one really commented about the strange behaviour of the wife and it also seemed from her lawyer that the two lawyers were working together. Sounds like someone wants to stick it to RCI big time...

If RCI's side of the story holds up, it's hard to see just what grounds the family would have for sticking to anyone. Looking carefully at RCI's response, it appears that they did what they could under the circumstances. The earlier reports about a premature cabin cleaning, etc., appear now to be entirely bogus.

 

More to the point, it's obvious that RCI's story vs. the wife's initial complaints to the press about RCI are in serious conflict (e.g., "abandonment") and can easily be verified one way or the other by a couple of independent parties, including the Turkish authorities and the port agent -- so it's unimaginable that RCI didn't do just as they said, putting at least parts of the wife's story into jeopardy from the get go, quite probably blowing her credibility in this particular case. The attorney won't be able to try other cases in the process of trying hers, so any claims about unreported shipboard crimes aren't really going to come into play here. Any claims of a "pattern" of prior behavior by RCI won't help, since it would appear that that behavior wasn't at all in evidence in this case.

[hermang]

While I am not privy to the will - one comment that was made is that young George's estate was only about $20k - maybe yes maybe no. Add the wedding gifts - and maybe we are talking $50k - if the bereaved widow is a party animal this ain't going far. SOOOOOO what do she do - SUE SUE SUE and get tons of public or was that pubic appearances, sign a movie deal or made for TV deal and now have a lovely nest egg.

 

Maybe she figures RCL will settle to make it go away??

 

Now we have the two new witnesses wo shay she was flirting and she kneed Georgie in the "Groin" ( must be PC here) Some newlyweds - he slept elsewhere ON THE HONEYMOON YET - and maybe she did too????

 

Kind of makes you think.

 

So now the family hires Dr; Henry Lee - if the glove don't fit you must acquit??

 

Geeze Louise

[canderson]

 

It amazes me that the family can accuse RCI of anything publicly. Isn't there some sort of gag order for preventing this type of public blabbering?

 

Ever heard of trying a case in the court of public opinion, even before the first motion is filed?

 

Is anyone else curious as to the financial status of Smith's parents, sister, etc., or does anyone already know?

[Sky Sweet]

While I am not privy to the will - one comment that was made is that young George's estate was only about $20k - maybe yes maybe no. Add the wedding gifts - and maybe we are talking $50k - if the bereaved widow is a party animal this ain't going far. SOOOOOO what do she do - SUE SUE SUE and get tons of public or was that pubic appearances, sign a movie deal or made for TV deal and now have a lovely nest egg.

 

Maybe she figures RCL will settle to make it go away??

 

Now we have the two new witnesses wo shay she was flirting and she kneed Georgie in the "Groin" ( must be PC here) Some newlyweds - he slept elsewhere ON THE HONEYMOON YET - and maybe she did too????

 

Kind of makes you think.

 

So now the family hires Dr; Henry Lee - if the glove don't fit you must acquit??

 

Geeze Louise

 

Are you sure that George Smith's estate is that small? I read that his parents are very wealthy, so he may have other assets in the form of a trust. I find it very strange that in her offer for a reward, Jennifer Hagel Smith described herself as the widow and executor of her husbands estate, when he has not yet been found or declared dead. Maybe she knows that he really is.

[wolfganghowell]

There's a lengthy thread on this topic over at the Royal Caribbean board.

 

Some tidbits that might be of interest to ya'll......

 

The witnesses to the fight are not new - that had been mentioned somewhere months ago. Additionally - many people seem to have witnessed them partying with these young men several nights. The flirting with another man story came initially from the California teen who said they were all on the elevator from the casino to the disco when Jennifer and the casino manager were getting a little too friendly. Don't remember exact wording but when he was interviewed by Turkish authorities he was really throwing the casino manager under the bus.

 

Mr Smith's sister is an attorney but I have never seen it mentioned what type of law she practices.

 

I think Mr Fain showed admirable restraint on Larry King. The Smith's lawyer seems to be doing an excellent pre trial jury tampering. Hope a lot of people in Miami or wherever this trial ends up (if it actually makes it to trial) don't watch cable news. I sympathized for this family until last night. Now I think they have lost all perspective on this tragedy.

[poetic license]

quote:

 

What I find curious is that she was even allowed to pass out ("fall asleep") in a hallway. Mind you I'm certainly no cruise expert, however as a night owl I tend to wander the halls exploring the ship. I would inevitably run into a crew member or fellow passenger here and there. I for one would certainly mention to the first crew member I found or at least use the nearest phone to advise of the passed out ("sleeping") or whatever status of a non vertical fellow passenger.:cool:

 

* * *

 

I think I read in the RCI statement that the cabin next to the Smiths telephoned guest relations about 3:50 a.m. to report the 'drinking party noises', and that between the time the call was made to the time when a crew member showed up on the doorstep, that same person pounded on the wall and the noises stopped soon after. I believe the report also said a staff person knocked on their door around 4:10 a.m., but no one answered. The lovely Mrs. Smith was found around 4:30 a.m., only 20 minutes later, sleeping in a hallway. Twenty minutes, very late at night, does not seem like an inordinate amount of time to go undiscovered sleeping in a hallway exclusively made up of other cabins; it wasn't as if it were in a more public area. Also note it took several crew members over 25 minutes to get her into the wheelchair before getting her back to her room. Anyone that out of it couldn't possibly have been 'with it' enough to lucidly find their way to the spa a mere three and a half hours later. She must REALLY have been out of it ... or perhaps feigning?

 

I sincerely hope the truth prevails. The tragic results of this incident, no matter what the cause, must be crushing to his family. The bizarre behaviors of both Smiths, along with the subsequent explanations, have more holes than a swiss cheese.

[hermang]

Are you sure that George Smith's estate is that small? I read that his parents are very wealthy, so he may have other assets in the form of a trust. I find it very strange that in her offer for a reward, Jennifer Hagel Smith described herself as the widow and executor of her husbands estate, when he has not yet been found or declared dead. Maybe she knows that he really is.

All I can relate is what I heard "repeated" on the boards that his estate was worth about 20k.

 

I would not characterize his folks as "loaded" despite being from Greenwich.

Folks own a liquor store - Keep in mind that liquor prices are regulated in CT AND stores close at 8pm M-Sat and not open on Sunday Holidays etc.

 

She may be executor - but if memory serves me correctly - unless a judge says otherwise - it will take almost a year to probate his estate AND maybe upt to 5 years before he is declared legally dead. He may have an insurance policy or three - which may be worth something.

 

If they just got married - I am sure he did not have a huge chunk o change

except for mabe wedding gifts - if one wants to read into what has been around - he spent money lavishly - so he probably didn't save much either.

[hermang]

In the Abrams report - they refer to the captain as a Former captain with RCCL - did he retire or was he "RETIRED" by the company because of his statements - this is the first time I heard he was no longer with RCCL

[Barry ATL]

In the Abrams report - they refer to the captain as a Former captain with RCCL - did he retire or was he "RETIRED" by the company because of his statements - this is the first time I heard he was no longer with RCCL

 

On MSNBC the captain said his retirement was in the works two months before this incident.

[cyscopup]

Actually he corrected himself and said it was in the works for two years. I believe RCCL also confirmed that it was in the plans for two years.

 

BTW- I am no expert-"but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night" and I think the wife does indeed know more than she is saying.

 

Hopefully the truth comes out soon.

[woodofpine]

the only question is whether RCI is willing to offer the Smiths 100K or so to shut up and go away, or whether they are willing to spend $200K or more to try the case and "probably" win outright. It's probably cheaper to litigate through the possible line winning issue point of summary judgment (for all the who-ha, I've yet to hear any half credible allegation of lapse by RCI that caused Smith's injury) that would terminate the case in the line's favor pre-trial.

 

Premises security cases are tough, under admiralty even tougher, and the weakness of the Smith's case is demonstrated by the Smith's "shake down" efforts to media manipulate the claim. RCI is obviously rising to the challenge...

[wolfganghowell]

Someone on the RCCL board said they sailed on Brilliance before this cruise and had been told the captain was retiring at the end of the year. So he was retiring before this happened and was not forced out.

[Nancynurse]

Poeticlicense...I agree with you totally...it is very convenient that she was found in the hallway a short time after the cabin complaint "passed out." If someone was drugged or drunk to the extent that they needed a wheelchair to get her back to the cabin...how was she able to be up bright and early for a spa treatment. I also wonder how she didn't find it strange that her new hubbie didn't arrive for their his and her massage.

 

So many questions...too few answers!

 

Nancy

[Sky Sweet]

I find it interesting that the wife and parents hired different attorneys. Under normal circumstances, they would want to work as a team to solve the mystery of his disappearance. This leads me to believe that his parents think that the wife might not be so innocent. I also wonder if she hired Henry Lee as her scientific expert to preclude his parents from using him.

[madelinerose]

Good point.

 

I think that both sets of parents were in denial and have since found out that their children have been party animals for quite some time. They've probably been partying heavily for years and now the parents are embarrassed and humiliated because the truth will be known about their little darlings. ;)

 

This leads me to believe that his parents think that the wife might not be so innocent.

[hermang]

the only question is whether RCI is willing to offer the Smiths 100K or so to shut up and go away, or whether they are willing to spend $200K or more to try the case and "probably" win outright. It's probably cheaper to litigate through the possible line winning issue point of summary judgment (for all the who-ha, I've yet to hear any half credible allegation of lapse by RCI that caused Smith's injury) that would terminate the case in the line's favor pre-trial.

 

Premises security cases are tough, under admiralty even tougher, and the weakness of the Smith's case is demonstrated by the Smith's "shake down" efforts to media manipulate the claim. RCI is obviously rising to the challenge...

I don't think as a matter of policy RCI can "settle" for monetary damages - because if they do then they will be opening up Pandora's box for every ambulance chasing lawyer in Florida. RCI has attorneys on retainer so costs for attorneys are relatively small. The Smiths and Hegel-Smiths are no doubt working with lawyers who think they will get a nice piece of any settlement and the guys they are working with will be looking at fees in the gazillions. Furthermore even if the lose in criminal court - they will pull an OJ and sue in Civil court where they think they have better chance of winning a big pay day as evidenced by the $33 million the plaintiffs won in judgement against OJ.

 

Same reason we don't negotiate with terrorists - do it once and you can never say no again.

[canderson]

Furthermore even if the lose in criminal court - they will pull an OJ and sue in Civil court where they think they have better chance of winning a big pay day as evidenced by the $33 million the plaintiffs won in judgement against OJ.

 

Same reason we don't negotiate with terrorists - do it once and you can never say no again.

Herman -- I am confident that this will start and end as a civil case. Whatever led you to think RCI would be involved in any sort of criminal case to begin with?

[woodofpine]

you don't know what you're talking about...

 

First, Smith v. RCI has virtually nothing to do with the criminal courts (a la OJ). Second, large businesses like the cruise lines defend countless claims (some meritorious some not) all the time. While not being an attractive target is a consideration, cases are nearly always litigated and settled by plaintiffs and defendants on the economic merits, rather than "principal"; money being the main principal of business.

 

In litigation, RCI uses outside legal counsel that are no doubt charging $100-$300+ per hour (the retainer merely being a pre-paid trust fund against which the fees are charged); "retainer" doesn't reduce legal expense. With much of this case's evidence being overseas, evidence handling issues will be quite expensive. This expense is much more easily borne by RCI than the Smiths and their Florida counsel who (must also bear it). The Smiths have no where near the resources of RCI in a longer term fight; hence the strategy of clamoring in the media in hopes RCI will offer "something" to shut up and go away.

 

As someone else mentioned the Smiths are now beginning to "wake up to reality" to see that they will be the ones under scrutiny at least as much if not more so than RCI. How much fun can that be for self-rightuous hall sleepers?

 

I suspect that in a month or so, being yesterdays news, the item will disappear. On inquiry, a statement issued, "a resolution was reached which is satisfactory to the family and the line, the terms of which are confidential." The line is presently (if not already) retaining legal counsel in Turkey to conduct discovery that will require the attendence of Smith's counsel who will probably begin to sollapse under the economic burden and will begin recommending that the Smiths accept modest offers to settle.

 

As for the "gazillions of dollars" comment, so much insurance industry propaganda. Not this case, rarely any case.

 

For instance, after prior claims, and having internally debated the dangers of having coffee that was significantly hotter than anyone elses (in the interest of selling more), and a claimant with skin grafts on her booty, MCDonalds was "burned" by a trial jury for $14 Million. The insurance industry let you know ALL about that one; ALL - not quite. Neither McDonalds or its insurers announced that this famous case settled on appeal with the claimant taking less than $500,000... but in the public's mind "gazillions...

[garykool81]

I know this is a longshot, but it is *quite* possible that she and her newly-wed husband might have been drugged. Yes, it is more likely that she was simply drunk and sleeping in the hallway, but having something such as GHB dropped into a drink at a bar by a would-be killer is also not completely unbelieveable.

 

My point is, let's not condemn anyone just yet before we continue to see more information.

[EmJakeBubbie]

I must thank all you legal-buffs for the legal education I am getting by reading all of this. I'm wondering what will be the final resolve?

[woodofpine]

Despite Mrs. Smith's dubious chest pounding about not being hand held AFTER the disappearance, what fact based (repeat it, "fact based") allegation have they levelled that RCI,

 

1) created the danger and injury that befell George Smith, or

2) failed to act such that the injury claimed resulted...

 

???

 

Cries that "cruise lines cover up crime" and "they put me off the ship" makes good media but means absolutely zero when put to the point 1 and 2 tests. Mystery sleuthing makes for "fun" media consumption, but equals zero when it comes to RCI liability; keep in mind - in court - speculation is indamissable.

 

Based on what's known so far, can Mrs. Smith even make out a claim that will survive defense motions to dismiss? Maybe - maybe not, hence the Smith's spirited media attack (if they were so sure they wouldn't waste their time, why provide the defense more ammo?). But, if the Smiths can withstand the defenses present pre-trial, I wouldn't want to be her at trial. As everyone has pointed out, the "facts" - so unsympathetic to the claimant - would be a cross-examiners field day. The only tactical issue would be to not over do it (re sliced and diced hall sleeping newlywed).

 

The only proveable fact here seems to be that cruise ships are more dangerous than 2 story motels if you're going to get black out wasted drunk.

[Ma Bell]

I know this is a longshot, but it is *quite* possible that she and her newly-wed husband might have been drugged. Yes, it is more likely that she was simply drunk and sleeping in the hallway, but having something such as GHB dropped into a drink at a bar by a would-be killer is also not completely unbelieveable.

 

My point is, let's not condemn anyone just yet before we continue to see more information.

 

I doubt that anyone would need to drop anything into the drinks of these two. According to witnesses, they seemed to be doing a great job themselves of trying to drink the ship dry, including drinking Absinthe brought aboard by others. It's a horrible thing for this family, but these were surely not a couple of innocent bystanders. I sincerely hope they find out what really happened, but I really don't see where RCI bears responsibility for what happened.

[hermang]

you don't know what you're talking about...

 

First, Smith v. RCI has virtually nothing to do with the criminal courts (a la OJ). Second, large businesses like the cruise lines defend countless claims (some meritorious some not) all the time. While not being an attractive target is a consideration, cases are nearly always litigated and settled by plaintiffs and defendants on the economic merits, rather than "principal"; money being the main principal of business.

 

In litigation, RCI uses outside legal counsel that are no doubt charging $100-$300+ per hour (the retainer merely being a pre-paid trust fund against which the fees are charged); "retainer" doesn't reduce legal expense. With much of this case's evidence being overseas, evidence handling issues will be quite expensive. This expense is much more easily borne by RCI than the Smiths and their Florida counsel who (must also bear it). The Smiths have no where near the resources of RCI in a longer term fight; hence the strategy of clamoring in the media in hopes RCI will offer "something" to shut up and go away.

 

As someone else mentioned the Smiths are now beginning to "wake up to reality" to see that they will be the ones under scrutiny at least as much if not more so than RCI. How much fun can that be for self-rightuous hall sleepers?

 

I suspect that in a month or so, being yesterdays news, the item will disappear. On inquiry, a statement issued, "a resolution was reached which is satisfactory to the family and the line, the terms of which are confidential." The line is presently (if not already) retaining legal counsel in Turkey to conduct discovery that will require the attendence of Smith's counsel who will probably begin to sollapse under the economic burden and will begin recommending that the Smiths accept modest offers to settle.

 

As for the "gazillions of dollars" comment, so much insurance industry propaganda. Not this case, rarely any case.

 

For instance, after prior claims, and having internally debated the dangers of having coffee that was significantly hotter than anyone elses (in the interest of selling more), and a claimant with skin grafts on her booty, MCDonalds was "burned" by a trial jury for $14 Million. The insurance industry let you know ALL about that one; ALL - not quite. Neither McDonalds or its insurers announced that this famous case settled on appeal with the claimant taking less than $500,000... but in the public's mind "gazillions...

Point 1 - I believe the Smiths / Hegel Smiths are going to sue RCL in Criminal court first to establish that RCI was negligent in that they did not provide a safe environment for cruise passengers. They should ultimately lose that one.

 

I am sure they will use some outside legal counsel - but they can afford and no doubt have appropriate in house attorneys for most of what they need - it is inconceivable that they don't have a at least one firm on permanent retainer.

 

You are absolutely correct that with most of the evidence and people being overseas the costs to the Smiths / Hegel Smiths will be very high and much more easily bourne by RCI - on that we are in total agreement.

 

I fail to see why RCI will offer the Smiths anything other that I wish you well.

Just my opinion and as a stock holder I would not want the company setteling this claim unless there is proof that the company did something wrong. The concept that the company has to pay hush money for a pax screwing up is wrong