Toddler Death Law Suit Update

[Another_Critic]

Is anyone currently on a Freedom class ship to test the family's claim that it is physically impossible for GF to have leaned out the window?

[Tulsacoker]

4 minutes ago, Another_Critic said:

Is anyone currently on a Freedom class ship to test the family's claim that it is physically impossible for GF to have leaned out the window?

I was on Liberty after that happen and could lean out the opening no problem

[dodgestang]

9 minutes ago, Another_Critic said:

Is anyone currently on a Freedom class ship to test the family's claim that it is physically impossible for GF to have leaned out the window?

All you have to do is follow along.....the video seems pretty cut and dry to me.....

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaPnhlQCkOg

 

Video stills.....and then discussion how once lawyers get involved....everything breaks down.....I mean...."I did not have se ual relation with that woman"

[Another_Critic]

10 minutes ago, dodgestang said:

All you have to do is follow along.....the video seems pretty cut and dry to me.....

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaPnhlQCkOg

 

Video stills.....and then discussion how once lawyers get involved....everything breaks down.....I mean...."I did not have se ual relation with that woman"

 

I don't want blurry evidence videos, I want real time feedback from the pros (CC members).  🙂

 

P.S.  If you're not up for the assignment ... move along.  😉 j/k

Edited January 23, 2020 by Another_Critic

[dodgestang]

3 minutes ago, Another_Critic said:

 

I don't want blurry evidence videos, I want real time feedback from the pros (CC members).  🙂

 

P.S.  If you're not up for the assignment ... move along.  😉 j/k

 

No worries....I didn't realize you only wanted opinions 😉

 

Having been on several RC ship and walking past open windows frequently....and sometimes sticking my whole head out....it is impossible NOT to know it is open.  There is a temp delta right near it, visual indications through the larger frames, often times a breeze.....the idiot even stuck his head out before....he done f'ed up but we live in a society where no one is responsible for their own actions....if you succeed you didn't do that on your own and if you fail.....it wasn't your fault...

 

Man I"m grumpy today ;).  What will April get here so I can sail away and relax

[perditax]

I'd seen the videos but I just noticed this quote from the article linked today:

 

The family has filed a motion seeking to force the cruise line to release video from all 13 cameras

 

Any armchair lawyers want to speculate on why they would do that unless they were sure the other angles would exonerate them somehow? Is it just a bluff? Genuinely asking. When I first came across this stuff a few days ago, the family was quoted as being aghast that any video had been 'leaked' at all. Now they're asking to release it all?

 

The 'release all video' request is the only thing that's made me think twice about the man's guilt. 

 

[Another_Critic]

9 minutes ago, dodgestang said:

Man I"m grumpy today ;).  What will April get here so I can sail away and relax

 

28 days until my relaxing sail away.  🙂

[CruisingWalter]

1 hour ago, JennyB1977 said:

Parents seem to now be saying it is physically impossible for the GF to have leaned out the window. I am 5'3" and if I tried I could get my shoulders past the window frame. Not sure what they are trying to say about his feet needing to be 7" off the floor 🤷‍♀️

 

David Begnaud the reporter is 5'9". Anello appears to be taller than him in their interview....

 

https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/ct-nw-royal-caribbean-cruise-ship-death-chloe-wiegand-20200123-2nmrsz3pnvbgjoi5ge7zmd3pqe-story.html

 

It's pretty easy to lean out the windows, I've leaned out of them to get photos and shoot video with my GoPro multiple times on multiple ships.  Again, it's a very sad situation where nobody is going to win, but ultimately, there is no fault to Royal Caribbean. The fault lies entirely with the family.

[CruisingWalter]

31 minutes ago, perditax said:

I'd seen the videos but I just noticed this quote from the article linked today:

 

The family has filed a motion seeking to force the cruise line to release video from all 13 cameras

 

Any armchair lawyers want to speculate on why they would do that unless they were sure the other angles would exonerate them somehow? Is it just a bluff? Genuinely asking. When I first came across this stuff a few days ago, the family was quoted as being aghast that any video had been 'leaked' at all. Now they're asking to release it all?

 

The 'release all video' request is the only thing that's made me think twice about the man's guilt. 

 

 

It's possible they have not released all of them because any cameras from outside the ship would potentially show the child falling.  Nobody in the general public needs to see that. Only the judge and a jury if it proceeds to trial.  I'm guessing the two cameras from inside are the only ones that saw the incident from inside the ship. The other 11 are probably all outside and possibly including multiple security cameras from the port.

[Two Wheels Only]

 

The attorney has been providing the above photo to the media.....Freedom of the Seas deck 11 a few windows away from where Anello was (the bar is behind you if looking this way).

 

The photo is a screen capture from a video that is on Youtube. (click to see the video of the area/it's not the controversial video)

 

The attorney doesn't show the following photo captured from the same video....

 

 

...which shows how easily someone leaning on the railing can extend their arm past the window. 

 

ANYONE who watches the surveillance videos cannot honestly claim that a person of Anello's size would not have their head/neck/shoulders OUTSIDE of the window if leaning on the railing the way that he did. I could post a screen capture of Anello leaning out of the window with and without Chloe but I won't. 

 

Knowing how close the railing is to the window and then claiming that it is "physically impossible" for Anello to lean out of the window is absurd. 

Edited January 23, 2020 by Two Wheels Only

[Cruiser_1977]

The other thing I'm thinking is they say the "angled window" when it's open it's not angled. It's railing, then 18", then windowsill.

[S.A.M.J.R.]

29 minutes ago, perditax said:

I'd seen the videos but I just noticed this quote from the article linked today:

 

The family has filed a motion seeking to force the cruise line to release video from all 13 cameras

 

Any armchair lawyers want to speculate on why they would do that unless they were sure the other angles would exonerate them somehow? Is it just a bluff? Genuinely asking. When I first came across this stuff a few days ago, the family was quoted as being aghast that any video had been 'leaked' at all. Now they're asking to release it all?

 

The 'release all video' request is the only thing that's made me think twice about the man's guilt. 

 

I think they're grasping at straws.  There's really no reason to release any video that doesn't show the incident (showing him at the pool even a minute before really does nothing regarding guilty/not guilty.  AND I'm hoping RCI doesn't release any video of the toddler actually falling.

 

So, assuming RCI doesn't release any more video (and I think the videos that are out there were "leaked" as opposed to "released"), then the lawyer starts playing PR games saying "see, they're trying to hide what REALLY happened." 

 

Yes, the side video is from a distance and is partially blocked by a pillar so you don't see his head actually go out the window.  What you can see is his waist (roughly) up against the railing and his upper body leaning over.  Even if his head is not outside the window frame, it's at least even with it BEFORE he picks up Chloe.  Therefore there is no way any reasonable person could think there was glass there.  If there's other video that shows he never leaned over the railing, I'd like to see it, but I don't think it's out there.  I doubt there are any other interior cameras with an equal quality view to what's be released.  

 

I'm sure RCI has some exterior footage, and they should hold that for a trial when they HAVE to produce it. Surely that would "seal" the question.

[Tulsacoker]

Plus its not as if the windows are crystal clear where they are. Pretty obvious where windows are and not in my opinion 

Edited January 23, 2020 by Tulsacoker

[Two Wheels Only]

1 hour ago, perditax said:

Any armchair lawyers want to speculate on why they would do that unless they were sure the other angles would exonerate them somehow? Is it just a bluff? Genuinely asking.

 

Chewbacca defense. 

[nadinenurse1]

What does that mean Chewbecca defense ?

Edited January 23, 2020 by nadinenurse1

[Tulsacoker]

I a lawyer term .. confuse the defense 

[S.A.M.J.R.]

37 minutes ago, Two Wheels Only said:

The photo is a screen capture from a video that is on Youtube. (click to see the video of the area/it's not the controversial video)

Off topic, but I wonder if "Micheal P" (who posted this video in 2016) is wondering why so many people are watching it.  I know I've gone to it a number of times and posted it in another board for people to watch.  

[dodgestang]

3 minutes ago, nadinenurse1 said:

What does that mean Chewbecca defense ?

Joke from South Park focusing on the absurdity of some of Cochran's arguments that helped get OJ off the hook.

 

 

As for why they would want 'all the angles'......it's just like Football man....one angle will look one way, one angle will look another way.  It will just help the defense team try and add more crap into the air to try and obfuscate things.....it doesn't matter if this angle show something conclusively...look at all these other angles where you can't see anything.....we have more videos that show nothing, so we can't rely on just the one angle that shows something.

[time4u2go]

Does anyone know how high the rail is?

[not-enough-cruising]

1 hour ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

I think they're grasping at straws.  There's really no reason to release any video that doesn't show the incident (showing him at the pool even a minute before really does nothing regarding guilty/not guilty.  AND I'm hoping RCI doesn't release any video of the toddler actually falling.

 

So, assuming RCI doesn't release any more video (and I think the videos that are out there were "leaked" as opposed to "released"), then the lawyer starts playing PR games saying "see, they're trying to hide what REALLY happened." 

 

Yes, the side video is from a distance and is partially blocked by a pillar so you don't see his head actually go out the window.  What you can see is his waist (roughly) up against the railing and his upper body leaning over.  Even if his head is not outside the window frame, it's at least even with it BEFORE he picks up Chloe.  Therefore there is no way any reasonable person could think there was glass there.  If there's other video that shows he never leaned over the railing, I'd like to see it, but I don't think it's out there.  I doubt there are any other interior cameras with an equal quality view to what's be released.  

 

I'm sure RCI has some exterior footage, and they should hold that for a trial when they HAVE to produce it. Surely that would "seal" the question.

Regarding the above referenced underlined passages, I do not believe RCI released any of these videos, they were leaked to a San Juan talk show. 

[mayleeman]

1 hour ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

I'm sure RCI has some exterior footage, and they should hold that for a trial when they HAVE to produce it. Surely that would "seal" the question.

 

American legal system disfavors trial "surprises" because many cases are more likely to settle once both sides know all the evidence. If this was a discovery request, all tapes would have to be produced or at least identified. If not produced, there would have to be some explanation of their omission or an assertion of some type of privilege or other legal grounds for withholding them. Parties often claim something is not relevant, but obviously no one can assert that and then later try to introduce a withheld video proving their case.

 

Everyone needs to step back and let the system work before demanding dismissal or accusing the family of greed because they haven't folded once detrimental evidence shows up. We all benefit from a system that lets both sides develop their information rather than depending on media reports, rumor, or layperson social media evaluations of what legal standards are. We can all certainly conjecture about the importance of things like the video, but remember we are not privy to witness interviews, discussions among any of the parties, the police investigatory reports, the prosecutors' view of the public interest, or the experts on both sides likely hired to be evaluating many things. 

 

Any speculation that the grandfather intended this tragedy is repugnant and shameful. That is literally the type of comment that in the past uttered in a crowd could get people lynched--it is unfounded in any evidence, it has never been suggested by anyone with knowledge of the case, and we can only hope that it was suggested by someone who doesn't recognize that blurting out things like that can create an atmosphere of hate tainted by the very suggestion.  

 

 

 

[Johnamac123]

On 1/22/2020 at 2:18 PM, brillohead said:

The only thing I can think of that the lawyer is referring to as "industry standards" is for windows in a high-rise building... which obviously don't apply to ships.

(Remember how Eric Clapton's young son fell out of a high rise apartment window almost thirty years ago?)  

What the lawyer is trying to do is compare the obviously outdoor pool deck area to a comparable indoor situation.  Anyone who has ever been on a ship will know that the open air pool deck is NOT an indoor, totally enclosed facility.  

There are no railings in the Windjammer or Main Dining Room or even Oceanview Staterooms, because none of those windows open to the outside.  There are railings on all of the balconies, sun decks, observation decks, and pool decks, because all of those have ways to access the outside.


I am heartened to see that Royal has finally commented on the absurdity of the lawsuit, and that they evidently intend to fight this rather than just making it go away with a settlement.  

Plain and simple, the only person responsible for this tragic event is the step-grandfather, who is either lying outright or has developed some sort of mental block regarding the events of that afternoon.  

 

 

Debbie, I think this answers ur ?:

 

  On 1/22/2020 at 5:37 AM, chengkp75 said:

I don't deal with US construction or OSHA codes, so I'm not sure of the exact requirements either, but the ships do not have to meet any US code.  The ships must meet SOLAS requirements, which are similar to what you mention, but here is what is in the US Code (the US law that enables the SOLAS requirements):

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/46/116.900

 

This is the only standard that the ship needs to meet, not any other "industry standard" that the lawyer claims would apply.

[akcruz]

6 hours ago, SRF said:

 

HOW do you know that???????

 

Most have stated that it is a POSSIBILITY.  Not that it was definite thing.

 

You find it hard to believe, because you are a reasonable person.  There ARE some very bad people in the world.

 

 

I did not say definitively but that I find it very hard to believe.  On the other hand, no I will not go back and find it, at least one said they believe it was intentional.  Yes there are bad people in this world but we do lve in an innocent proven guilty world.  I have seen nothing in any report except for a doting grandfather who made a horrible mistake.  If there was any indication of anything else I don't believe the family would be standing behind him.

 

Put yourself in this families shoes, would you want people on the internet accusing, and yes people are here, of intentionally harming a child within your family.  It took me a  number of times seeing here before commenting.  Yes it is the internet, but we are talking about a small child's death, in my opinion (and yes I realize other don't care about that necessarily) it is not right to be making such accusations with NO evidence that is the case.  

[sharonna3]

What I find horrifying after seeing video and pictures is the fact that he didn't put her on the railing as I thought but instead put her on the windowsill, beyond the railing, either standing or sitting (with her legs hanging outside the ship).  Complete negligence and reckless behavior by the grandfather.

Edited January 24, 2020 by sharonna3

[TNcruising02]

It is a fact that he lifted her up above the railing and window ledge. If he put her on the railing, then she would have had to propel herself 18 inches forward and then over the ledge in order to fall. If that’s not the case, he lifted her over the railing and out the window. The released video shows that the child was not sitting on the railing.  He put her outside the window. Any way you slice it, this was his fault and not Royal’s. Everything they are claiming about Royal being responsible is a lie.

 

When someone lifts a child over a balcony and drops the child, it’s very clear who is to blame. Their continued efforts to blame the cruise line are very dishonest. 

Edited January 24, 2020 by TNcruising02