Toddler Death Law Suit Update

[coffeebean]

53 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

Because it's what HE believes happened.

 

Lawyer: Tell us in your own words what happened.

Anello: I crouched down and reached to those windows so we could bang on the glass like we do at her brothers hockey game.  I couldn't reach the glass down there, so I knew she couldn't.  So I picked up so we could reach the glass that was higher up.  

 

There, it's admissible.  

How can this be admissible when it can be proved that the windows at ground level can easily be touched by a toddler of Chloe's size? Sorry, I don't buy your scenario.

[fred30]

25 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Not a lawyer, but the crime scene is divided between the ship where she fell, which is not US territory, and the pier where she actually died, which is, so this is another sticky international law issue, I would think.

And by the time they figured it out it may have been too late to test for Alcohol.

 

[chengkp75]

51 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

How can this be admissible when it can be proved that the windows at ground level can easily be touched by a toddler of Chloe's size? Sorry, I don't buy your scenario.

I believe you are mistaking "believable" or "truthful" with "admissable".

[cltnccruisers]

47 minutes ago, fred30 said:

And by the time they figured it out it may have been too late to test for Alcohol.

 

This was embarkation day.  I can speak from experience, as I'd bet most of us can, that if the family flew in that day from Indiana everyone with the exception of Chloe was probably bushed.  For grandpa a couple of drinks on the plane and one on board may not push his BA level over the limit but it would almost definitely have him impaired.

[akcruz]

Maybe I am not remembering it correctly but I thought way back the original story stated alcohol was not a factor.  How they know that I can't say but pretty sure that was in the original reports on this.

 

On the other hand, as I have said before, I would bet the heat had something to do with it.  If they flew in that day coming from Indiana to Puert Rico in July can be a big change in temperature, let alone the humidity.  If GF was not in the best shape, can't say for sure but by the looks of him wouldn't discount that, not drinking enough water and in the heat and humidity of PR I can see issues.  

[cltnccruisers]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Not a lawyer, but the crime scene is divided between the ship where she fell, which is not US territory, and the pier where she actually died, which is, so this is another sticky international law issue, I would think.

To make it even more confusing, Royal is incorporated in Liberia but they are headquartered in Miami.  So should Liberia have any say in this?   Also, is there a difference between international law and maritime law?  When I was poking around with maritime law sites several years ago there was a distinction drawn between a ship on the high seas and one moored or even within territorial waters.

 

Shakespeare had it right in Henry VI.  "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

[cltnccruisers]

5 minutes ago, akcruz said:

Maybe I am not remembering it correctly but I thought way back the original story stated alcohol was not a factor.  How they know that I can't say but pretty sure that was in the original reports on this.

 

On the other hand, as I have said before, I would bet the heat had something to do with it.  If they flew in that day coming from Indiana to Puert Rico in July can be a big change in temperature, let alone the humidity.  If GF was not in the best shape, can't say for sure but by the looks of him wouldn't discount that, not drinking enough water and in the heat and humidity of PR I can see issues.  

Without testing I don't know how they could know alcohol was not a factor.  But your point on heat and humidity is right on.  If he was on meds they should be looked at as well.  I take heart medication including diahretics.  I found out the hard way that I have to cut that dosage in half in the Caribbean or risk getting dehydrated.  Dehydration may not sound like much but I couldn't function and outwardly may have appeared drunk.

[chengkp75]

7 minutes ago, cltnccruisers said:

To make it even more confusing, Royal is incorporated in Liberia but they are headquartered in Miami.  So should Liberia have any say in this?   Also, is there a difference between international law and maritime law?  When I was poking around with maritime law sites several years ago there was a distinction drawn between a ship on the high seas and one moored or even within territorial waters.

 

Shakespeare had it right in Henry VI.  "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

While the country of incorporation has impact on the laws that the corporation must follow (for example it's taxes), where it is headquartered only affects those who actually work there (only the employees at that US headquarters are covered by US labor laws).  However, the ship is not registered in Liberia, but in the flag state, and this registration, in simplistic terms, means the ship is under the laws of the flag state, in this case the Bahamas.  Yes, there is a difference between international law and maritime law, as there are areas of international commerce and relations that do not have anything to do with the maritime industry.

 

The distinction between a ship on the "high seas" (international waters) and one within the territorial waters of another nation is that in international waters, only the flag state laws apply (except in cases of "extra-territorial jurisdiction" claims like the US has for US citizens), while in the territorial waters, or docked, of another nation, the ship falls under both the jurisdiction of the flag state and the "port state" (that nation whose waters the ship is currently in).  This overlap is shown by the fact that ships have to follow US pollution laws while in US ports, but they do not have to follow US labor laws when in US ports.  As I've said, there is much legal debate as to how far "port state" jurisdiction can be applied to foreign ships, and is usually determined on a case by case basis, building up a common law frame of reference under the guidelines of maritime or admiralty law, which itself is a compendium of common law.

[cltnccruisers]

5 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

While the country of incorporation has impact on the laws that the corporation must follow (for example it's taxes), where it is headquartered only affects those who actually work there (only the employees at that US headquarters are covered by US labor laws).  However, the ship is not registered in Liberia, but in the flag state, and this registration, in simplistic terms, means the ship is under the laws of the flag state, in this case the Bahamas.  Yes, there is a difference between international law and maritime law, as there are areas of international commerce and relations that do not have anything to do with the maritime industry.

 

The distinction between a ship on the "high seas" (international waters) and one within the territorial waters of another nation is that in international waters, only the flag state laws apply (except in cases of "extra-territorial jurisdiction" claims like the US has for US citizens), while in the territorial waters, or docked, of another nation, the ship falls under both the jurisdiction of the flag state and the "port state" (that nation whose waters the ship is currently in).  This overlap is shown by the fact that ships have to follow US pollution laws while in US ports, but they do not have to follow US labor laws when in US ports.  As I've said, there is much legal debate as to how far "port state" jurisdiction can be applied to foreign ships, and is usually determined on a case by case basis, building up a common law frame of reference under the guidelines of maritime or admiralty law, which itself is a compendium of common law.

I was hoping from the Merchant Marine emblem that you would help.  What a mess.  Thanks.

[Tree_skier]

On 2/15/2020 at 5:10 PM, S.A.M.J.R. said:

But he is the child's grandfather (granted, step- but still).  There is not much of an age requirement to being a grandfather.  In theory, you could be one at forty (if not younger).  If you make age judgements based on calling him that, that's on you.  

I was a grandfather at 37 and am 54 now.  It's pitiful that they are trying to portray this man at 51 as a frail old man. 

[cltnccruisers]

55 minutes ago, Tree_skier said:

I was a grandfather at 37 and am 54 now.  It's pitiful that they are trying to portray this man at 51 as a frail old man. 

I became a GF at 50 - 65 now.  I must say that when I first saw him I could not believe he was only 51.  He looks at least 10 years older.  That could indicate health issues.

[fred30]

Like I said before Chloe was perfectly safe looking through or banging on the lower glass until the Grandfather got involved.

She was too little too climb up on top of the railing herself.   Left alone she would still be here.

 

I have been on that class of ship 3 times and there is no way you wouldn't know those windows were open.

 

[tonit964]

As another poster stated earlier in the thread, this poor child was doomed either way on this cruise being looked after in any capacity by GF. I think something horrible would have happened to her at some point in this cruise. Imagine if they had a balcony?! So preventable.

[TNcruising02]

The handle to open the windows can be reached by someone standing up against the railing, so his comment about not being able to touch the window is not based on reality. I am not sure how detailed the prosecution will be in the criminal case, but a reconstruction of the railing and window with actual measurements would be very beneficial to show the jury exactly what can be touched when standing against the railing.

 

Also, it doesn't take 30 seconds to figure it out. Maybe between his medication, the heat, and possibly an earlier drink he was impaired. To hold a baby on an open window ledge for that amount of time with only one arm just seems like the grandfather had something going on. 

[KelSny1011]

43 minutes ago, tonit964 said:

As another poster stated earlier in the thread, this poor child was doomed either way on this cruise being looked after in any capacity by GF. I think something horrible would have happened to her at some point in this cruise. Imagine if they had a balcony?! So preventable.

 

I have had that same belief.  I think this guy was an absolute moron and maybe they never realized just how dumb he could be.  I think he might be likable/lovable and that's why it's easier for them to place their blame and anger on RCI than on this grandfather.  Their argument from the beginning is that all ships should basically be idiot proof, and that's why RCI is fighting it.  I hope RCI wins because this could change cruising for us all.

[brillohead]

7 hours ago, coffeebean said:

While I was recently on Mariner OTS, I checked out the windows at floor level on the pool deck. I guess those windows are NOT the same design as Freedom OTS because I could easily reach the glass at ground level. The windows could easily be reached by a toddler of Chloe's age. If the window design is the same on Mariner and Freedom ( which is basically a stretched version of Mariner), I have no idea what Anello was talking about ( not being able to reach the windows at Chloe's level while she was standing on the ground).

 

I hope this statement is investigated further. Makes no sense that Anello could not reach the glass at ground level.

 

7 hours ago, coffeebean said:

Does anyone know for sure if the Freedom class window design is actually the same design on the Voyager class ships which includes Mariner OTS?

Exactly the same.  

Even the hearse-chasing attorney's re-enactment photos show that Anello's claims are all BS.  Here you can see how close the glass is to the floor:

 

The lip of that windowsill is probably about 4-6 inches deep.  

If Anello couldn't reach 4-6 inches, he's got some serious T-Rex arms! 

Now, if he squatted down where the red shoe is in the photo, it's plausible he couldn't reach from there.  But it's NOT plausible that Chloe, who was used to walking right up to the window at her brother's hockey games, would stop three feet short of the window to try to bang on the glass.  

I think it's pretty safe to say that NONE of Anello's story is accurate.  I doubt Chloe even wanted to bang on the glass at all -- that's something she did at her brother's hockey games, not at a pool.  And Anello certainly didn't pick her up to facilitate her banging on the glass, because he was knowingly in front of an open window.  

I think Anello's story is the fiction he came up with to satisfy his cognitive dissonance, nothing more.  He effed up, plain and simple, and rather than believe he did something so monumentally stupid, his brain concocted this "barely plausible alternate reality" instead.  

[brillohead]

7 minutes ago, KelSny1011 said:

I have had that same belief.  I think this guy was an absolute moron and maybe they never realized just how dumb he could be.

Until I started working as an RN, I had no idea how absolutely STUPID the majority of people actually are.  

Honestly, I truly believe that all the stupid warning labels have resulted in the further dumbing-down of the populace.  It used to be that people would get hurt/killed doing something stupid, and they'd learn (and their family/friends would learn from their example) not to do the stupid thing again.   

Now that we have labels telling us not to do pretty much anything that could cause us harm, nobody is learning these "common sense" lessons anymore.  Nobody has the ability to think through the consequences of their actions anymore, because nobody has any "bad examples" to learn from anymore.  

It blows my mind that anyone would need a sign to tell them not to dangle a baby over the railing of a cruise ship... but evidently that is what this world is coming to. 

 

[CruiserBelle]

3 hours ago, akcruz said:

Maybe I am not remembering it correctly but I thought way back the original story stated alcohol was not a factor.  How they know that I can't say but pretty sure that was in the original reports on this.

 

On the other hand, as I have said before, I would bet the heat had something to do with it.  If they flew in that day coming from Indiana to Puert Rico in July can be a big change in temperature, let alone the humidity.  If GF was not in the best shape, can't say for sure but by the looks of him wouldn't discount that, not drinking enough water and in the heat and humidity of PR I can see issues.  

 

Winkleman said that alcohol was not a factor and that Anello didn't drink.  There was no test performed for his BAL.

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

3 hours ago, cltnccruisers said:

This was embarkation day.  I can speak from experience, as I'd bet most of us can, that if the family flew in that day from Indiana everyone with the exception of Chloe was probably bushed.  For grandpa a couple of drinks on the plane and one on board may not push his BA level over the limit but it would almost definitely have him impaired.

 

3 hours ago, akcruz said:

Maybe I am not remembering it correctly but I thought way back the original story stated alcohol was not a factor.  How they know that I can't say but pretty sure that was in the original reports on this.

 

On the other hand, as I have said before, I would bet the heat had something to do with it.  If they flew in that day coming from Indiana to Puert Rico in July can be a big change in temperature, let alone the humidity.  If GF was not in the best shape, can't say for sure but by the looks of him wouldn't discount that, not drinking enough water and in the heat and humidity of PR I can see issues.  

I don't think heat, age, jet lag, humidity, alcohol, or medicines had anything at all to do with it.  I think he simply had a colossal "brain fart" moment.  Since this happened (before the video came out) I have thought he looked out the window, saw something interesting, and wanted Chloe to see the same thing.  So he picked her up, showed her whatever was interesting, probably a couple things considering he held her for 30+ seconds, she squirmed and fell out of his grasp.  She happened to fall forward, which, since she was standing on the railing (at least), put her head, then the rest of her body out the window.     

[coffeebean]

54 minutes ago, brillohead said:

 

Exactly the same.  

Even the hearse-chasing attorney's re-enactment photos show that Anello's claims are all BS.  Here you can see how close the glass is to the floor:

 

The lip of that windowsill is probably about 4-6 inches deep.  

If Anello couldn't reach 4-6 inches, he's got some serious T-Rex arms! 

Now, if he squatted down where the red shoe is in the photo, it's plausible he couldn't reach from there.  But it's NOT plausible that Chloe, who was used to walking right up to the window at her brother's hockey games, would stop three feet short of the window to try to bang on the glass.  

I think it's pretty safe to say that NONE of Anello's story is accurate.  I doubt Chloe even wanted to bang on the glass at all -- that's something she did at her brother's hockey games, not at a pool.  And Anello certainly didn't pick her up to facilitate her banging on the glass, because he was knowingly in front of an open window.  

I think Anello's story is the fiction he came up with to satisfy his cognitive dissonance, nothing more.  He effed up, plain and simple, and rather than believe he did something so monumentally stupid, his brain concocted this "barely plausible alternate reality" instead. 

 

 

 I thought as much that the window design is the same on the Voyager class ships and Freedom class ships. Royal had better fight this atrocity of a law suit and not cave and settle out of court.

Edited February 18, 2020 by coffeebean

[brillohead]

23 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

I don't think heat, age, jet lag, humidity, alcohol, or medicines had anything at all to do with it.  I think he simply had a colossal "brain fart" moment.  Since this happened (before the video came out) I have thought he looked out the window, saw something interesting, and wanted Chloe to see the same thing.  So he picked her up, showed her whatever was interesting, probably a couple things considering he held her for 30+ seconds, she squirmed and fell out of his grasp.  She happened to fall forward, which, since she was standing on the railing (at least), put her head, then the rest of her body out the window.     

And now that we know for a fact (from the video) that she wasn't even standing on the railing, but was in fact PAST the railing and likely standing on the edge of the windowsill, and only being held with one hand at that.... probably the most epic colossal brain fart in the history of mankind.  

 

[Tree_skier]

1 hour ago, brillohead said:

 

Exactly the same.  

Even the hearse-chasing attorney's re-enactment photos show that Anello's claims are all BS.  Here you can see how close the glass is to the floor:

 

The lip of that windowsill is probably about 4-6 inches deep.  

If Anello couldn't reach 4-6 inches, he's got some serious T-Rex arms! 

Now, if he squatted down where the red shoe is in the photo, it's plausible he couldn't reach from there.  But it's NOT plausible that Chloe, who was used to walking right up to the window at her brother's hockey games, would stop three feet short of the window to try to bang on the glass.  

I think it's pretty safe to say that NONE of Anello's story is accurate.  I doubt Chloe even wanted to bang on the glass at all -- that's something she did at her brother's hockey games, not at a pool.  And Anello certainly didn't pick her up to facilitate her banging on the glass, because he was knowingly in front of an open window.  

I think Anello's story is the fiction he came up with to satisfy his cognitive dissonance, nothing more.  He effed up, plain and simple, and rather than believe he did something so monumentally stupid, his brain concocted this "barely plausible alternate reality" instead.  

The reenactment actor is no way 5'11''.  I'm 6'1'' and can assure I can easily reach outside these windows.

This Sunrise picture was taken with my arm sticking outside the window by quite a margin

 

 

Edited February 18, 2020 by Tree_skier

[coffeebean]

4 minutes ago, Tree_skier said:

The reenactment actor is no way 5'11''.  I'm 6'1'' and can assure I can easily reach outside these windows.

This Sunrise picture was taken with my arm sticking outside the window by quite a margin

 

 

Now THAT is why we love cruising!! What a gorgeous sunset on the open water.

[Midwestgal]

If he was drinking it would be on his S&S card. I’m sure they checked all of their accounts for that.

Edited February 18, 2020 by Midwestgal

[time4u2go]

2 hours ago, Midwestgal said:

If he was drinking it would be on his S&S card. I’m sure they checked all of their accounts for that.

Not necessarily.  He might have drank on shore.