Toddler Death Law Suit Update

[A&L_Ont]

9 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

I'm trying to understand why the re-enactment is more in Anello's favor and I still don't see it that way.

 

This is how I see it:

• Anello claims he did not know there was no glass in the window, so he placed Chloe up to the window so she could bang on the glass.
• According to the re-enactment photo by the family attorney, Anello places Chloe's feet on the window frame. That would be impossible to do if there was actually glass there.
• If there were glass in the window frame, Anello would not have been able to place anything in the window frame, including Chloe's feet.
• As the re-enactment shows the doll with the feet on the window frame; that only shows THERE WAS NO GLASS in the window frame. How could there be? Two things could not occupy the same space at the same time (glass and child's feet)

Am I simplifying this too much? It seems so cut and dry to me.

 

In this photo they have the doll’s toes on the metal frame of the window, that holds the window track in place.  If it was shut she’d only have her toes on the edge of it, see the window one pane closer.  If it was open she could have her entire foot on the track.  Either would not be comfortable.

 

[coffeebean]

8 hours ago, nadinenurse1 said:

So, how will the legal proceedings evolve, is it like ours where there is a jury of “peers” a judge decision, ? have no idea of the laws , and what do you all think is the possibility that Royal, in the end, will cave, I hope they dont this event appears so oblivious to all except the family

Has it been made public if the family has actually watched the videos? Is there recent news out there that I haven't seen? I was not this interested in this story when it first happened. I was was saddened for the family and Chloe but that was the extent of it. Since I'm reading this thread, I have become much more engrossed in "how and why did this happen and wanting to know the outcome. I hope RCI does not settle. They are NOT at fault.

[coffeebean]

8 hours ago, nadinenurse1 said:

So, how will the legal proceedings evolve, is it like ours where there is a jury of “peers” a judge decision, ? have no idea of the laws , and what do you all think is the possibility that Royal, in the end, will cave, I hope they dont this event appears so oblivious to all except the family

You mean OBVIOUS, right?

[nadinenurse1]

I doubt anyone is getting  pleasure, for me, I really can not believe  this idiot did this and the family is sticking by him.. and others that post have more ways to find out information than I do I feel I get the most updated data here that I can not find out on my own.  I do not enjoy when posters are rude to other posters ..but apparently it is a highly desisted repeated behavior for some 

[rusty nut]

15 hours ago, time4u2go said:

Like what?

I cannot comprehend..... no, wait......I cannot possibly fathom how Anello "accidentally" did, what he did.

[NLH Arizona]

2 hours ago, A&L_Ont said:

 

In this photo they have the doll’s toes on the metal frame of the window, that holds the window track in place.  If it was shut she’d only have her toes on the edge of it, see the window one pane closer.  If it was open she could have her entire foot on the track.  Either would not be comfortable.

 

Also if you look at the video, he can lean over through the window, where in the re-enactment he can't.  Not to mention he is holding her with one arm in the video and on here with two.

Edited February 11, 2020 by NLH Arizona

[A&L_Ont]

Maybe the best function from the last overhaul. 

[TNcruising02]

He had an extreme disregard for Chloe's safety, so his first thought when lifting her up to a window that was open was not her wellbeing.  I think him being a step grandfather is worth noting. Of course there are many step parents and step grandparents who are wonderful with their kids. But there is a higher incidence of certain behaviors when the children are not blood related. If the child were his own, would he have been more likely to have the child's safety as a priority or is he naturally reckless? He had several tickets over the years for not wearing a seatbelt. Would he have even dangled his wallet out of the window?

 

I know that as a parent I did not trust my young children around water or in public places with anyone else.  I also know that nobody would ever think of their safety in the same way that I did.  

 

I still don't get why people who don't care for this discussion continue to make comments. Is moving on so hard? 

Edited February 11, 2020 by TNcruising02

[BSocial]

If ANY of my relatives (blood relative or not) dropped my child out a window, I would never be able to look them in the face again.   

. 

Edited February 11, 2020 by BSocial
Delete

[Two Wheels Only]

33 minutes ago, mjkacmom said:

I find it distasteful that the fact that the grandfather is not a blood relative changes the fact that he is her grandfather. My MIL is my husband’s stepmother, she is every much a grandmother to my kids as my mom.

 

There are reasons why Anello's relationship to the family continues to get mentioned.

 

1. Some people hear or read "grandpa" and assume that Anello has raised a child who is now raising a child. A parent/grandparent would/should know better than to lift a child over a safety rail, extend a child over the rail, and to/out of a window.

 

2. Anello was only 50 years-old when this happened. People assume that "grey-haired grandpa" is older or perhaps too old (mentally or physically) to care for an 18 month-old.

 

3. The parents supporting Anello even though neither of them was raised by Anello. From what was reported, the mother wasn't exactly fond of Anello before this happened (according to deleted Facebook posts).

 

Obviously, there are great step-parents and great step-grandparents out there. Anello isn't one of them.

 

3 hours ago, mjkacmom said:

This thread is a train wreck, folks are deriving too much pleasure from repeating the same opinions again and again. It also has a bit of a lynch mob feel.

 

There is no pleasure on my part. MANY people have seen, heard, or read about different aspects of this incident. Some non-cruisers have opinions that have no factual basis at all. Trying to provide accurate info within the thread will inevitably lead to info being repeated. Just a few pages back, a well-informed poster was corrected because they thought that the fall wasn't near Squeeze.

 

With the media's version of events, Winkleman's deceptive version of events, non-cruisers misunderstanding of cruising and cruise ships, etc., there is a lot of "incorrect" out there no matter how people feel about what happened.

 

If you do not like or disagree with something that was posted, you are free to post a reply. Wanting a thread locked or deleted because you don't like it is unnecessary. You can easily avoid any thread that you don't like.

 

 

[brillohead]

About the only thing I find relevant in Anello's "step" grandfather status, in my own personal opinion, is whether he actually raised children himself.  I haven't seen one way or the other if he ever had his own kids, or if he was in the home while they were growing up.  

 

People who have spent significant periods of time around small children tend to look at their care and safety differently from those who aren't familiar with small children.  

Edited February 11, 2020 by brillohead
typo

[makiramarlena]

my guess is that Mr. Anello lifted the kid up to show her something outside the window and leaned her over so that she could look out, and now he doesn't want to admit it, even possible he blocked it out in favor of the "bang on the glass" story. Holding a doll is not like holding a real kid. They wiggle and sometimes resist. 

 

Also, the incident did not occur in a "glass-enclosed children's play space." They were standing on the pool deck behind a bar.

Edited February 11, 2020 by makiramarlena

[Seville2Cabo]

A point to remember is that even though GF claims he could not tell there was no glass, The GD was not colorblind and would have been able to see there was nothing there and would not have leaned forward to bang on glass that was not there.

[chengkp75]

31 minutes ago, Seville2Cabo said:

A point to remember is that even though GF claims he could not tell there was no glass, The GD was not colorblind and would have been able to see there was nothing there and would not have leaned forward to bang on glass that was not there.

Ah, so now we are relying on the judgement of a two year old?

[Seville2Cabo]

19 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Ah, so now we are relying on the judgement of a two year old?

Of course not, but our kids / grandkids liked to bang on glass too, but never saw them try to bang on glass that was not there.  So if she was not trying to bang on glass,  why would she be moving toward the open window unless the GF was moving her in that direction.   I guess it does not make sense that the GF stood her up and she tried to bang on the glass and fell.  

[ReneeFLL]

On 2/10/2020 at 5:05 PM, cruisinfanatic said:

Time to close this thread!

 

Why, because you think so?

 

[ReneeFLL]

On 2/10/2020 at 5:47 PM, Gwendy said:

Please remember a little girl died.  Her family will never be the same.  Leave all assumptions alone and let the courts sort it out.  I hope none of the family or friends ever see this thread.

I don't think anyone is forgetting about Chloe. I do hope that her family reads this, because  maybe they will open their eyes a little more.

[TNcruising02]

I hope that anyone reading this thread who has not cruised on Royal will be able to understand that Chloe was not in danger from the windows. Children aren't at risk of falling overboard on their own and everyone can tell when windows are open.

[MalteseMama2]

23 hours ago, brillohead said:

About the only thing I find relevant in Anello's "step" grandfather status, in my own personal opinion, is whether he actually raised children himself.  I haven't seen one way or the other if he ever had his own kids, or if he was in the home while they were growing up.  

 

People who have spent significant periods of time around small children tend to look at their care and safety differently from those who aren't familiar with small children.  

I agree completely! I’m a stepmom, step grandma and a retired elementary school teacher. I am very aware of how easily children can get hurt in ANY situation. I’ve even (discreetly) kept an eye on children in public when I’m not sure the adult in charge is watching carefully. I once watched a baby in a stroller that was obviously left alone in the Solarium at least 1/2 hr. I couldn’t relax until the parents returned. They had obviously been in the pool. The stroller was in an area where they would not have been able to see it from the pool. 

[SandiLynn]

7 hours ago, MalteseMama2 said:

I agree completely! I’m a stepmom, step grandma and a retired elementary school teacher. I am very aware of how easily children can get hurt in ANY situation. I’ve even (discreetly) kept an eye on children in public when I’m not sure the adult in charge is watching carefully. I once watched a baby in a stroller that was obviously left alone in the Solarium at least 1/2 hr. I couldn’t relax until the parents returned. They had obviously been in the pool. The stroller was in an area where they would not have been able to see it from the pool. 

I also agree. If GF has not spent time around young children he does not think the same as some who has. For example, my sister is unable to have children and never around them until I had my son. She loves him and would never let anything happen  to him, but she even admits that she doesn't always think of all the dangers we do. That being said, she would not drop him out a window. She might pick him up to see something out window but she would not put him across a safety rail. 

[Magicat]

9 hours ago, MalteseMama2 said:

I agree completely! I’m a stepmom, step grandma and a retired elementary school teacher. I am very aware of how easily children can get hurt in ANY situation. I’ve even (discreetly) kept an eye on children in public when I’m not sure the adult in charge is watching carefully. I once watched a baby in a stroller that was obviously left alone in the Solarium at least 1/2 hr. I couldn’t relax until the parents returned. They had obviously been in the pool. The stroller was in an area where they would not have been able to see it from the pool. 

We were on the Oasis and 3 young children under 10 were trying to climb on the outer railing on the top deck.  We alerted a bartender who immediately came and hustled the children away.  No parents were around.  We ended up giving him a WOW card and mentioning his actions to the hotel director.  Probably saved one of those kids' lives.  Kids are kids, some parents are reckless. Others are just stupid.

[coffeebean]

On 2/11/2020 at 5:13 PM, Seville2Cabo said:

A point to remember is that even though GF claims he could not tell there was no glass, The GD was not colorblind and would have been able to see there was nothing there and would not have leaned forward to bang on glass that was not there.

Im not so sure an 18 month old would know tinting in window glass from clear glass. I do think, however, a child of that age would recognize that there was no glass to bang on. I may be wrong about th

[coffeebean]

I'm caught up on this thread so started reading comments on the many YouTube videos about Chloe's death. Some statements that are being I have to question. One such statement is that other cruise lines have safety screens on their windows. I've been on a few different cruise lines and I honestly don't recall any screens on any windows. My recollection may not be the best so just wondering if any of you have seen screens on cruise ship windows.

 

I also keep reading people posting that Royal Caribbean did not adhere to safety standards for the windows. How can a cruise ship operate if the line does not adhere to current safety standards? People really believe RCI was in violation of the safety standards? The family attorney actually said that Royal Caribbean did was not in compliance to the safety standards with the windows. How can this be true?

 

 

[brillohead]

7 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

How can this be true?

It's not.

People lie.... especially ambulance (or hearse) chasing attorneys.



And no, screens are NOT a "safety item" -- they aren't strong enough to hold back a person's weight, and give a false sense of safety.  You'd need cages/bars for that kind of security, like at a zoo.

[TNcruising02]

The attorney did mention the safety standards in the lawsuit.  But I will bet those aren't safety standards for cruise ships.  I believe Royal has even posted information online about their safety standards.