Grandfather sentenced for death of granddaughter

[Two Wheels Only]

20 hours ago, Bailey & Sophie said:

When we have gotten on and off the ship there is quite a large expanse of water to bridge over. If she just fell, wouldn't she land in the water? How did she end up on the pier?

 

 

I put the black boxes there myself because the images of the covered body might disturb some. I didn't want the images to get deleted, the thread locked, or deleted. 

 

 

This is the view from the lowest of the 3 windows. Chloe could easily see outside and "bang on the glass" from ground level. You can also see the awnings that many have mentioned. It is still unknown if Chloe struck anything on the way down and I can't see any evidence of impact on the awning or frame. The cameraman isn't at the exact window that Chloe fell from (that area was blocked off by police) but it gives an idea of what the window structure/view is like. 

 

(I re-posted because I had to change the image host)

Edited February 12, 2021 by Two Wheels Only

[BecciBoo]

I know we're all pretty sick of this discussion but haven't seen anyone mention this:  reviewing all the footage and outside the ship photos with arrows pointing to the open window.  We've already established this guy leaned out the window way before he picked up Cloe and put her on the window sill.  If so, why didn't he just move over to the window next to it where the window was closed and safe for a toddler....and who thinks a toddler needed or wanted to see anything out a window on that ship....the guy is brain cell deficient, no other explanation.  Based on video footage alone, it was almost as if he planned it that way.  Just who are these people trying to fool.  There is no other explanation but that they are determined to profit from their own perfidy and stupidity.  Disgusting and that is all I have to say about that 😝

[CraigG]

On 2/11/2021 at 12:00 PM, BecciBoo said:

I have already written as a stock holder and given them my opinion not to settle, may not be worth a flip, but I feel better.

I get the RCL shareholder benefit too. I don't think they have anything to gain by going to trial. Even if they win, the court of public opinion tends to look down upon the rich and powerful prevailing over the little guy. This family will be portrayed as victims.

[JanNSteH]

50 minutes ago, BecciBoo said:

I know we're all pretty sick of this discussion but haven't seen anyone mention this:  reviewing all the footage and outside the ship photos with arrows pointing to the open window.  We've already established this guy leaned out the window way before he picked up Cloe and put her on the window sill.  If so, why didn't he just move over to the window next to it where the window was closed and safe for a toddler....and who thinks a toddler needed or wanted to see anything out a window on that ship....the guy is brain cell deficient, no other explanation.  Based on video footage alone, it was almost as if he planned it that way.  Just who are these people trying to fool.  There is no other explanation but that they are determined to profit from their own perfidy and stupidity.  Disgusting and that is all I have to say about that 😝

I wholeheartedly agree with you, especially when I saw someone stated earlier that the family is also suing for the toddler’s future earnings.  

[livingonthebeach]

57 minutes ago, BecciBoo said:

I know we're all pretty sick of this discussion but haven't seen anyone mention this:  reviewing all the footage and outside the ship photos with arrows pointing to the open window.  We've already established this guy leaned out the window way before he picked up Cloe and put her on the window sill.  If so, why didn't he just move over to the window next to it where the window was closed and safe for a toddler....and who thinks a toddler needed or wanted to see anything out a window on that ship....the guy is brain cell deficient, no other explanation.  Based on video footage alone, it was almost as if he planned it that way.  Just who are these people trying to fool.  There is no other explanation but that they are determined to profit from their own perfidy and stupidity.  Disgusting and that is all I have to say about that 😝

 

I fully agree.  Also, on another board, someone stated that there had been a man looking out of that same window a few seconds earlier.  Apparently, the grandfather waited for that man to leave (you can see him by a pole crouching down next to the toddler waiting).  When the man left, he led the toddler to that OPEN window -- not any other window -- there were fixed windows below, above, next to, etc. He sticks his head out for a few seconds, then picks up the toddler, holding her with only his right hand, he then switches to his left hand only and a few seconds later she disappears. 

 

The family is now accusing RCI of destroying CCTV tapes.  They want the portion of the tape that shows WHO opened that window.  They claim the reason why RCI didn't want to release it is because (the family believes), a crew member opened it thus in their belief, that makes RCI liable.  They are really grasping at straws.  It makes no difference who opened the window, what makes a difference is who placed the toddler in a place any reasonable person would know not to.  Would you place a toddler on the hood of your car then drive off and sue the car manufacturer for any injuries?  <sarcasm> Of course the car company is liable because there was no warning sticker on the hood telling you not to do that. </sarcasm>

[TheMastodon]

On 2/8/2021 at 5:23 PM, smokeybandit said:

Actually it seems fair to me.  A tragic accident, even if it stemmed from stupidity.

 

Yes my thoughts exactly.  Very poor decision that he has to live with the rest of his life.

[tonit964]

2 hours ago, CraigG said:

I get the RCL shareholder benefit too. I don't think they have anything to gain by going to trial. Even if they win, the court of public opinion tends to look down upon the rich and powerful prevailing over the little guy. This family will be portrayed as victims.

Actually, from the comments on the articles when this first happened, most people were for RCL and very much against the family.

[ALWAYS CRUZIN]

RCL has excellent safety on board a ship. You cannot for see what someone will do. People walk infront of a moving car all day every day. He got away with a slap on the wrist.

[Baron Barracuda]

4 hours ago, CraigG said:

I get the RCL shareholder benefit too. I don't think they have anything to gain by going to trial. Even if they win, the court of public opinion tends to look down upon the rich and powerful prevailing over the little guy. This family will be portrayed as victims.

A reason for taking this to court is that settling just encourages ambulance chasers to file frivolous claims.  Winkleman has been a pain in Royal's neck for years.  He must have a lot invested in this case so Royal would like nothing better than to beat him in court and watch him walk away empty handed..

[Two Wheels Only]

3 hours ago, livingonthebeach said:

Also, on another board, someone stated that there had been a man looking out of that same window a few seconds earlier.  Apparently, the grandfather waited for that man to leave (you can see him by a pole crouching down next to the toddler waiting). 

 

The man at the window was wearing a white hat, black shirt, and blue shorts. 4 seconds after he walks past Anello, Sam gets up and walks to the same window. 

 

3 hours ago, livingonthebeach said:

When the man left, he led the toddler to that OPEN window -- not any other window -- there were fixed windows below, above, next to, etc.

 

Chloe was in front. Anello followed Chloe. Anello is about 8-10ft behind Chloe. 

 

3 hours ago, livingonthebeach said:

He sticks his head out for a few seconds, then picks up the toddler, holding her with only his right hand, he then switches to his left hand only and a few seconds later she disappears. 

 

As Anello approaches the window, he appears to do something to his glasses (adjust?) in what I believe is a preparation for looking out of the window. He immediately leans out of the window as far as he can (which someone wouldn't do it they believed that the window was closed). Anello is actually holding Chloe with his left hand first then switches to his right hand. The "switch" happens almost simultaneously with the person in the white hoodie standing up.  

 

[sparks1093]

22 hours ago, CraigG said:

I get the RCL shareholder benefit too. I don't think they have anything to gain by going to trial. Even if they win, the court of public opinion tends to look down upon the rich and powerful prevailing over the little guy. This family will be portrayed as victims.

I haven't seen much sympathy for the family. I have spoken to many people who aren't cruisers whose thoughts echo those of many here on Cruise Critic vis a vis the grandfather's role.

[KmomChicago]

23 hours ago, BecciBoo said:

I know we're all pretty sick of this discussion but haven't seen anyone mention this:  reviewing all the footage and outside the ship photos with arrows pointing to the open window.  We've already established this guy leaned out the window way before he picked up Cloe and put her on the window sill.  If so, why didn't he just move over to the window next to it where the window was closed and safe for a toddler....and who thinks a toddler needed or wanted to see anything out a window on that ship....the guy is brain cell deficient, no other explanation.  Based on video footage alone, it was almost as if he planned it that way.  Just who are these people trying to fool.  There is no other explanation but that they are determined to profit from their own perfidy and stupidity.  Disgusting and that is all I have to say about that 😝

 

It is suspicious. The very best thing that can  be said about this situation is to assume the grandfather is unbelievably stupid. That is the best case scenario. The worst is a series of sinister nouns and adjectives for everyone left behind. It is almost impossible not to wonder whether there is anything accidental about it at all.

[nosapphire]

Had the grandfather said that it was a terrible, terrible mistake that he can never forgive himself for, then most people would have been sympathetic.

But it was odd even before the video was shown, and even odder now.

 

I've never cruised with RCL, but I fail to see how anyone could think they had any fault or liability whatsoever.

 

[CraigG]

2 hours ago, sparks1093 said:

I haven't seen much sympathy for the family. I have spoken to many people who aren't cruisers whose thoughts echo those of many here on Cruise Critic vis a vis the grandfather's role.

Don't get me wrong. I think this family is far from doing the right thing by pressing this suit. 

I'm saying RCL has little to gain by going to trial. The jury is not going to consist of a fired up bunch of internet commentators. Plaintiff council will make sure of that. The jury that is seated is probably hearing about this case for the first time and is only going to see real live grieving parents that suffered a horrendous tragic loss. Grandpa is not a plaintiff in this case.  He won't be sitting there at council's table daydreaming about where he going the spend his ill gotten gains. Unless they feel he's a truely sympathetic character, they may not even let him in the room until called as a witness.

Even if RCL wins, which is not nearly the slam dunk many think it is, They have absolutely nothing to gain by dragging this out on the evening news for another week. They settle, it goes away.  

 

Edited February 13, 2021 by CraigG

[CraigG]

21 hours ago, Baron Barracuda said:

A reason for taking this to court is that settling just encourages ambulance chasers to file frivolous claims.  Winkleman has been a pain in Royal's neck for years.  He must have a lot invested in this case so Royal would like nothing better than to beat him in court and watch him walk away empty handed..

When I first responded to a poster in this thread, it was from the perspective of a stockholder. My interest in this is strictly monetary. I win or lose based on RCL's decisions everyday.  

From that perspective I hope their descision on weather to try the case or settle is not based on settling a score with an attorney whose been a pain in their ass. I think the only emotion that will be seen in that court room is a couple of parents sitting there crying throughout the whole thing. 

[njkruzer]

22 minutes ago, CraigG said:

Don't get me wrong. I think this family is far from doing the right thing by pressing this suit. 

I'm saying RCL has little to gain by going to trial. The jury is not going to consist of a fired up bunch of internet commentators. Plaintiff council will make sure of that. The jury that is seated is probably hearing about this case for the first time and is only going to see real live grieving parents that suffered a horrendous tragic loss. Grandpa is not a plaintiff in this case.  He won't be sitting there at council's table daydreaming about where he going the spend his ill gotten gains. Unless they feel he's a truely sympathetic character, they may not even let him in the room until called as a witness.

Even if RCL wins, which is not nearly the slam dunk many think it is, They have absolutely nothing to gain by dragging this out on the evening news for another week. They settle, it goes away.  

 

Grandpa can be called by both sides as a witness as this is a civil case.  Royal has a lot to lose if it caves.  It will embolden this lawyer and others like him.  A win will be boldly displayed on their website. 

[ATG]

41 minutes ago, njkruzer said:

Grandpa can be called by both sides as a witness as this is a civil case.  Royal has a lot to lose if it caves.  It will embolden this lawyer and others like him.  A win will be boldly displayed on their website. 

Unfortunately, the jury is made up of people from the general population.  I once served on a jury in a civil case.  The general opinion was “they have money, they should pay” not whether the family deserved anything.  I talked until I was blue in the face to change their minds.  We finally agreed to award the family $3,500 based on the company being partially at fault.  Not NEARLY what they asked for.  I was confident the company had liability insurance that would cover this, hopefully without raising their rates.

[livingonthebeach]

23 hours ago, Two Wheels Only said:

 

The man at the window was wearing a white hat, black shirt, and blue shorts. 4 seconds after he walks past Anello, Sam gets up and walks to the same window. 
 

Chloe was in front. Anello followed Chloe. Anello is about 8-10ft behind Chloe. 

 

As Anello approaches the window, he appears to do something to his glasses (adjust?) in what I believe is a preparation for looking out of the window. He immediately leans out of the window as far as he can (which someone wouldn't do it they believed that the window was closed).

Anello is actually holding Chloe with his left hand first then switches to his right hand. The "switch" happens almost simultaneously with the person in the white hoodie standing up.  

 

 

Thanks for the clarification.  Whether it's a hand off from the right to the left or the left to right, in my opinion, holding and handing off a 30-40 pound toddler from an un-dominant hand or any object for that matter, from a 11th deck window is a recipe for disaster. 

[Tree_skier]

On 2/11/2021 at 1:22 PM, logan25 said:

It must be beyond them to consider him so capable of negligence and bad judgment and the event entirely avoidable

I don't believe that it has anything to do with their ability to consider the truth.  She is a prosecutor and he is a cop.  They regularly see and are exposed to the worst of society.  They just want money.  Their actions and behavior are inexcusable in my opinion.  And before some chooses to flame me about  me not knowing what that kind of trauma is like... you no nothing about my experiences. I know what extreme trauma and loss is.  Nobody is that irrational this long after the event when the evidence is this conclusive and they are paid to analyze and pass judgment on evidence.

[Bloodgem]

6 hours ago, Tree_skier said:

I don't believe that it has anything to do with their ability to consider the truth.  She is a prosecutor and he is a cop.  They regularly see and are exposed to the worst of society.  They just want money.  Their actions and behavior are inexcusable in my opinion.  And before some chooses to flame me about  me not knowing what that kind of trauma is like... you no nothing about my experiences. I know what extreme trauma and loss is.  Nobody is that irrational this long after the event when the evidence is this conclusive and they are paid to analyze and pass judgment on evidence.

Is it possible that they cannot afford to drop the law suit now? 

[GUT2407]

One thing that does occur to me, here in Australia a defend and can say, this case is next to hopeless, but if we win the plaintiff has no capacity to meet our costs. If the Court agrees they can order that the proceedings be stayed until such time as the plaintiff shows how they will indeed be able to meet at costs order or pays sufficient money into Court.

 

Is there any such provision in your system.

[LilBlackDress]

14 hours ago, CraigG said:

Don't get me wrong. I think this family is far from doing the right thing by pressing this suit. 

I'm saying RCL has little to gain by going to trial. The jury is not going to consist of a fired up bunch of internet commentators. Plaintiff council will make sure of that. The jury that is seated is probably hearing about this case for the first time and is only going to see real live grieving parents that suffered a horrendous tragic loss. Grandpa is not a plaintiff in this case.  He won't be sitting there at council's table daydreaming about where he going the spend his ill gotten gains. Unless they feel he's a truely sympathetic character, they may not even let him in the room until called as a witness.

Even if RCL wins, which is not nearly the slam dunk many think it is, They have absolutely nothing to gain by dragging this out on the evening news for another week. They settle, it goes away.  

 

I disagree... If they settle, it still gets plastered all over the news and the public will think RC was at fault. They go to court, they have a 50/50 chance that the jury is impartial. The plaintiff doesn't get to stack the jury.

 

2 hours ago, Bloodgem said:

Is it possible that they cannot afford to drop the law suit now? 

I would think it is contingency case... 

[sparks1093]

15 hours ago, CraigG said:

Don't get me wrong. I think this family is far from doing the right thing by pressing this suit. 

I'm saying RCL has little to gain by going to trial. The jury is not going to consist of a fired up bunch of internet commentators. Plaintiff council will make sure of that. The jury that is seated is probably hearing about this case for the first time and is only going to see real live grieving parents that suffered a horrendous tragic loss. Grandpa is not a plaintiff in this case.  He won't be sitting there at council's table daydreaming about where he going the spend his ill gotten gains. Unless they feel he's a truely sympathetic character, they may not even let him in the room until called as a witness.

Even if RCL wins, which is not nearly the slam dunk many think it is, They have absolutely nothing to gain by dragging this out on the evening news for another week. They settle, it goes away.  

 

They have a lot to gain from not settling, since there isn't a real question that they did anything wrong and certainly not to a gross negligent standard. If they litigate and win then this would help prevent similar lawsuits in the future both against themselves and other cruise lines. They should only settle if they really think there is a significant chance that they would lose. Sure, the plaintiffs will try to get sympathetic jurors on the jury during voir dire, but so will they. My guess is that the case gets tossed, but if it doesn't then I wouldn't blame Royal for taking it to trial (nor would I blame them if they settle). 

[sparks1093]

3 hours ago, GUT2407 said:

One thing that does occur to me, here in Australia a defend and can say, this case is next to hopeless, but if we win the plaintiff has no capacity to meet our costs. If the Court agrees they can order that the proceedings be stayed until such time as the plaintiff shows how they will indeed be able to meet at costs order or pays sufficient money into Court.

 

Is there any such provision in your system.

In most jurisdictions parties to a law suit bear their own costs. There has been talk about requiring the losing plaintiff to bear the costs of litigation, but most agree this would have too chilling of an affect. People have the right to have redress to the courts. The court rules are in place to winnow out the truly frivolous suits.

[sparks1093]

1 hour ago, LilBlackDress said:

I disagree... If they settle, it still gets plastered all over the news and the public will think RC was at fault. They go to court, they have a 50/50 chance that the jury is impartial. The plaintiff doesn't get to stack the jury.

 

I would think it is contingency case... 

Even if it is a contingency case I don't think that means that the family can drop the suit without incurring the costs up until now. My wife retained an attorney on contingency once and I am fairly certain there was a clause in the agreement that said as much.