Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community
ATC cruiser

Toddler Death Law Suit Update

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, TNcruising02 said:

Even if if really was going to let her bang on the window, was he planning on letting go of her?  Because, window or no window, it seems like he would have been holding her since she was so far off of the ground.  So his comment about the window really makes no sense.  Was he going to just let go of her to bang on it?

 


I've said this more than once.  

 

Plain and simple, whether he thought there was glass there, whether he held her through the window or just in front of it, NONE OF THAT MATTERS ONE TINY BIT.  The fact that he picked her up and held her like that, unsupported by anything but his own extended arms, above a solid surface -- that's all you need to know in this case.  

The glass doesn't matter.


Him sticking his head through the window doesn't matter. 

The child being through the window or just in front of it doesn't matter.

He held the girl up and dropped her.   Nothing else matters. 

 

Whether she fell on the floor at his feet or whether she fell on the pier, either fall could be deadly. 

 

THE WINDOW/GLASS DOESN'T MATTER. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, coffeebean said:

What about Anello holding Chloe up to an open window. That is very odd behavior. Why didn't anyone notice?


Most likely because everyone was busy doing their own thing. 

 

3 hours ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

I'm not sure I would consider that "odd".  Unsafe, yes.  But I don't know that I'd approach someone holding a child up on the railing or near the window.  I'd assume they'd have a death grip on the child and who knows what kind of response you'd get from them. 


If I had too it would be at an exceptionally slow and deliberate pace. With this accident I’d be looking carefully at the glass to see if the window was open or shut before I got near or said anything to distract him.
 

Easy to say sitting in my living room but I honestly think we will all be more observant going forward. Hopefully none of us will ever have to cross that bridge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bradison said:

9.8m/s2 is the rate of acceleration due to gravity and not the actual velocity (speed) of the falling object.  It was funny when I took all of those physics classes in college it got beat into our heads.  Then I got into the real world (of the U.S.) and suddenly everyone was saying it was 32 feet/second squared.  Metric system be damned.

 

Plus, there's also the wind resistance. She was going less than 60mph when she hit. 

 

I've seen at least 2 different reports that state that she hit "something" on the way down. One report said that she hit the ship and another said that she hit an awning. Without video or at least an eyewitness, it is still unknown. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, coffeebean said:

What about Anello holding Chloe up to an open window. That is very odd behavior. Why didn't anyone notice?

Probably two reasons:

 

1. none of his movements appear to be so sudden or otherwise odd as to cause people who are engaged in their own activity to pay attention

 

2. Propping a child up on a safety railing, while dangerous and NEVER ok, is not really all that uncommon.  Stop by any zoo with a rail blocking a moat/pit around an enclosure and hang around for a bit watching. You'll see plenty of caregivers balancing children placed sitting on the railings "for a better view".   It's one of those things that IS dangerous, and clearly not allowed, but that many people don't think if as such in the moment.  

And saying something to a caregiver in that moment would most likely do no good or make the situation more dangerous by distracting the person.

 

In fact, I think the one good thing which could have potentially come out if this tragedy would have been if the family had decided to publicize how dangerous this is as a reminder to others.  Instead they've chosen to go the route of trying to normalize the dangerous behavior and shift blame.  That's too bad 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something stinks about this whole thing, and it's not the loss of a child. Of course, while the loss of Chloe is a tragic thing, it just stinks of something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Bradison said:

9.8m/s2 is the rate of acceleration due to gravity and not the actual velocity (speed) of the falling object.  It was funny when I took all of those physics classes in college it got beat into our heads.  Then I got into the real world (of the U.S.) and suddenly everyone was saying it was 32 feet/second squared.  Metric system be damned.

When she hit the pier her velocity would have been about 60 mph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, xxHadleyxx said:

In fact, I think the one good thing which could have potentially come out if this tragedy would have been if the family had decided to publicize how dangerous this is as a reminder to others.  Instead they've chosen to go the route of trying to normalize the dangerous behavior and shift blame.  That's too bad 

 

Agree, I think has been mentioned somewhere in this thread but worth repeating, look at how Bode Miller handled the death of his child.  They went out and reminded people about the potential dangers of water while grieving their loss instead of jumping to sue any and everyone.  They took a tragedy and used it for good, not point the finger at everyone else and look for $$.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Two Wheels Only said:

 

Plus, there's also the wind resistance. She was going less than 60mph when she hit. 

 

I've seen at least 2 different reports that state that she hit "something" on the way down. One report said that she hit the ship and another said that she hit an awning. Without video or at least an eyewitness, it is still unknown. 

I looked at images of the side of the ship and was wondering how she could have fallen without hitting something on the way down because it looks like there are p!aces that stick out beyond the window. I hadn't read anything about her hitting something, but it makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TNcruising02 said:

I looked at images of the side of the ship and was wondering how she could have fallen without hitting something on the way down because it looks like there are p!aces that stick out beyond the window. I hadn't read anything about her hitting something, but it makes sense.


There are balconies below the pool deck, but they don't stick out beyond the pool deck.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 "Prior to the fall, the child was in a clear-glass, enclosed children’s play space with her maternal grandfather, Salvatore Aiello. In the moments leading up to Chloe’s death, Aiello, was holding her on a railing. At that time, he thought it was backed by a glass pane. Chloe leaned forward to bang on the window and toppled out of an open window panel. She fell an estimated 150 feet from one of the ship’s highest decks, hitting an awning before landing on the concrete dock below and dying on impact."

 

https://www.expertinstitute.com/resources/insights/infant-death-on-royal-caribbean-cruise-ship-premise-liability-or-human-error/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the awning mentioned was a pier awning, much like the one shown in the photo in post #1274.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TNcruising02 said:

 "Prior to the fall, the child was in a clear-glass, enclosed children’s play space with her maternal grandfather, Salvatore Aiello. In the moments leading up to Chloe’s death, Aiello, was holding her on a railing. At that time, he thought it was backed by a glass pane. Chloe leaned forward to bang on the window and toppled out of an open window panel. She fell an estimated 150 feet from one of the ship’s highest decks, hitting an awning before landing on the concrete dock below and dying on impact."

 

https://www.expertinstitute.com/resources/insights/infant-death-on-royal-caribbean-cruise-ship-premise-liability-or-human-error/

The problem with the above statement (and for the GF’s statement to the media) is that is not what actually happened.  The video footage shows the GF dropped Chloe after dangling her out the window. 
 

The assertion the GF thought the glass pane was beyond the railing gets disproven when it’s shown the GF leans through the open window beyond the pane of glass with Chloe in his hands.  At that point, Chloe is not banging on the glass and she does not topple. 

Edited by atgood
Correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, atgood said:

The problem with the above statement (and for the GF’s statement to the media) is that is not what actually happened.  The video footage shows the GF dropped Chloe after dangling her out the window. 
 

The assertion the GF thought the glass pane was beyond the railing gets disproven when it’s shown the GF leans through the open window beyond the pane of glass with Chloe in his hands.  At that point, Chloe is not banging on the glass and she does not topple. 

I agree. I was only posting it to show that it was reported that she hit something on the way down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, atgood said:

The video footage shows the GF dropped Chloe after dangling her out the window. 

Can you give clues where to find that video footage?  The two security cams do not show that IMO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, atgood said:

The problem with the above statement (and for the GF’s statement to the media) is that is not what actually happened.  The video footage shows the GF dropped Chloe after dangling her out the window. 
 

The assertion the GF thought the glass pane was beyond the railing gets disproven when it’s shown the GF leans through the open window beyond the pane of glass with Chloe in his hands.  At that point, Chloe is not banging on the glass and she does not topple. 

 

The article was posted long before the videos were seen by the public. That's one of the problems with the public's opinion of what happened. Some people believe whatever info that they first get and lock that info into their brain as fact. Winkleman is trying/has tried to get his version locked into a potential juror's brain.

Edited by Two Wheels Only

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

Can you give clues where to find that video footage?  The two security cams do not show that IMO. 

I do not have the post #, but I saw the link in this thread.  The footage quality is not what you would see on CSI tv or Hollywood big screen.  
 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.  Neither one of us will be on the jury most likely though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TNcruising02 said:

 "Prior to the fall, the child was in a clear-glass, enclosed children’s play space with her maternal grandfather, Salvatore Aiello. In the moments leading up to Chloe’s death, Aiello, was holding her on a railing. At that time, he thought it was backed by a glass pane. Chloe leaned forward to bang on the window and toppled out of an open window panel. She fell an estimated 150 feet from one of the ship’s highest decks, hitting an awning before landing on the concrete dock below and dying on impact."

 

https://www.expertinstitute.com/resources/insights/infant-death-on-royal-caribbean-cruise-ship-premise-liability-or-human-error/

One of the issues I have with this statement is that the distance between the edge of the railing and the window is between 12 - 15 inches.... this child was a toddler.... why did he think it was a good idea to place a child on the railing and have her lean that distance against distance to bang on the glass. The risk of falling between the railing and the window was substantial... she can barely walk.. This makes no sense. And if his intent was to stand her against the window sill... that sill is quite narrow... no real room... again makes no sense. Photos of the girl banging glass at hockey game, show her standing on the ground doing so... Absolutely no reason she couldn't have done so on the ground. I am not sure why he did what he did... but none of it makes common sense. Perhaps there is some cognitive impairment involved....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, kearney said:

One of the issues I have with this statement is that the distance between the edge of the railing and the window is between 12 - 15 inches.... this child was a toddler.... why did he think it was a good idea to place a child on the railing and have her lean that distance against distance to bang on the glass. The risk of falling between the railing and the window was substantial... she can barely walk.. This makes no sense. And if his intent was to stand her against the window sill... that sill is quite narrow... no real room... again makes no sense. Photos of the girl banging glass at hockey game, show her standing on the ground doing so... Absolutely no reason she couldn't have done so on the ground. I am not sure why he did what he did... but none of it makes common sense. Perhaps there is some cognitive impairment involved....

His story makes no sense whatsoever. What, was he planning on letting go of her so the she could free fall to the deck floor while banging on the glass?  By his own admission, he let go of her so it doesn't matter whether or not there was a window there. I predict he will be convicted.  It's so sad that the little girl lost her life by trusting someone who should have put her safety above all else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pictures reproduced by the parents attorney show the doll ( child) standing on the window frame, not the railing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Nangelina said:

Pictures reproduced by the parents attorney show the doll ( child) standing on the window frame, not the railing!

So......the re-enactment by the lawyer placed the feet of the doll where the pane of glass would be, then Anello HAD to know THERE WAS NO GLASS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, compman9 said:

Wow. Just wow


I guess it depends on the individual.  I don’t see a photo as controversial thing. It’s a way of remembering a visit, as solemn as it is. However, someone posing inappropriately in a photo is a different ball of wax. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, rusty nut said:

Something stinks about this whole thing, and it's not the loss of a child. Of course, while the loss of Chloe is a tragic thing, it just stinks of something else.

Like what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nangelina said:

Pictures reproduced by the parents attorney show the doll ( child) standing on the window frame, not the railing!

of course it does, he wants everyone to think grandpa didn't do anything wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, NLH Arizona said:

of course it does, he wants everyone to think grandpa didn't do anything wrong.

That's not how I see it at all. If the child was placed on the window frame, that proves Anello knew THERE WAS NO GLASS in the frame. It looks like, to me, the re-enactment does not work in Anello's favor at all. Grandpa did the most incorrect thing that could be done. Do the photos/video show Anello placed Chloe's feet on the window frame? If that is what it shows, then Anello's goose is cooked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Member Cruise Reviews
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...