tiny blonde

I do recall having read somewhere, I don't remember where, shortly after her death that she was a special needs child.

The defense is just trying to get the videos ruled inadmissible as evidence, because they don't show what happened at the window, only behind the window (i.e. we only see what happened from behind Grandpa, and the front - where Chloe was just before she fell - is not visible). Any reason they can find to rule out evidence weakens the prosecution and could get the case "nol prossed," which means that while the charges will not be dropped, the prosecution will have too little evidence to support their case and the case will not be heard. And Grandpa can go home.

Apparently so. But clearly, if he had been holding her inboard of the window, she would not have fallen outboard of it.

I'm reading an essay in The New Yorker by Atul Gawande about brain function, and it says, ". . . visual perception is more than ninety per cent memory and less than ten per cent sensory nerve signals." Also, "The mind integrates scattered, weak, rudimentary signals from a variety of sensory channels, information from past experiences, and hard-wired processes, and produces a sensory experience full of brain-provided color, sound, texture, and meaning." and the bottom line, "Perception is inference." We know this to be true. "Green" is only what our brains tell us, not necessarily what's out there. Maybe Grandpa really thought there was glass there, because of a defect in his neuro-perception or the information stored in his brain. Still, that's not RCCL's fault. RC cannot know what defects of thinking a passenger might have. So maybe it was just an unavoidable tragedy that's no one's fault. In time the family will catch on to the fact that Grandpa often doesn't know what's in front of him. Poor Grandpa. Poor Chloe. Poor family. It's just sad all around. But certainly not RCCL's fault!!!!!!!!!!!

I hope so – I love Dateline! One of the things I love about it is the guilty party is always found out and pays the penalty.

Knowing what I do about the legal system and the way people's minds work, I predict that if Grandpa is found guilty in the criminal trial (and I hope he is), the family will cry, "Unfair!" and they'll appeal, and forever believe that it was RCCL's fault. It's far more comfortable than accepting the truth, which is too horrible. I wonder how Grandma and Grandpa's marriage is doing, and how it was before this. If I felt like spending a couple of years writing a novel, I can cook up a terrific backstory here!

Asking to get the video thrown out is a standard legal maneuver, and if any reason can be found to rule out the authenticity of the videos, they will be thrown out. It happens all the time. Evidence found on improperly executed search warrants, for example, are not allowed in testimony. It has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, it's about the lawyer trying to get his client acquitted, which is the lawyer's job. While I'm on the subject, a jury's findings actually have nothing to do with actual guilt or innocence, as is demonstrated by the large number of people in prison who did not commit the crime for which they were convicted. A jury's verdict has to do with their understanding of the law as it is explained to them, and their opinion (not the facts) regarding whether the defendant broke the law. So it's not a just system, only the best system we have, and lots better than when the people of Salem used to dunk witches in the ocean, figuring that if they were innocent, they wouldn't drown. We still have a lot of room for improvement. If the jurors feel there is room for doubt, they will acquit, even if grandpa actually planned to murder the child.

Of course the lawyer wants the videos dismissed! This lawsuit is going to be a very fierce battle. BTW, I have had the nagging thought, as well, that the grandfather planned it, that he thought he'd be doing the family a favor by ending the life of this special-needs child, whose care and education was going to cost more money. She was probably the star of the family, and maybe was the center of his wife's attention, and they may have argued about money. I think I (or someone) could write a great mystery novel about a possible backstory.

Yay RC! RC's lawyers have apparently been seeing and saying the same things we have been saying here on this board.

Rage is not a phase of grief, it's a component, and I doubt that they are "past it." It takes years to get over the rage at having your child snatched from you, from life! Think of them as being insane, because that's what grief is like, when it's acute, by which I mean severe. It's not insanity, in that it's normal and predictable, but it's indistinguishable from insanity. Maybe their rage is at the grandfather, maybe it's at God, maybe it's at the whole world, but RCCL is a convenient scapegoat for them. Let's hope the jury is strong and clearheaded and impartial, because the family cannot be those things, and will not be for quite some time. Also, don't forget denial, which is more powerful than you would believe. If they've looked at the video, they have not been able to see what it shows, because denial protects them from losing their minds permanently. My daughter was killed 31 years ago (not by me, but by someone else), and I was quite out-of-my mind for at least a couple of years, and sporadically for even longer. Her father was even more crazed than I was, and it went on for a very long time. Guilt, which all parents feel when they have failed to protect their child, creates even more misplaced anger. At its core, the anger is at themselves, for having trusted Grandpa with the baby. Please, no "sorry for your loss," I know that you would not wish this on me or anyone, just try to learn from someone who has been there. May it never happen to your family. I blame the lawyer, who is just using these poor people, and their suffering, to make a bundle from RCCL. I know lawyers, too, and some of them work for the benefit of the oppressed, and others work for their own benefit. This guy is a slime ball, in my opinion.

Rage is a normal phase of grief, and there is no rage (and no grief) like that of a bereaved parent. It's not rational, it's purely emotional.

It just occurred to me . . . in order for the child to have fallen to the dock below . . . wouldn't he have had to hold her BEYOND the upper edge of the lower pane of glass? Of course he would, so how could he have thought there was glass if he was holding her OUTBOARD of the upper edge of the lower pane? What was he thinking???? So I no longer think he could possibly have believed there was glass there. I sure hope the jury is smart. I wonder whether the jury will be all Puerto Rican, whether the trial will be conducted in two languages, etc.

I haven't yet been on my first cruise (but am counting the days!!), so I have yet to see the windows . . . . so could someone tell me how much space there is between the rail and the glass? And couldn't the grandfather have been leaning over the rail but yet not out the window?

This was apparently (from the Daily Mail, above) the statement made by RCCL in its motion to have the Weigand's lawsuit denied: 'This is not a case of an unknowing child approaching an open window and falling out because the window was defective or improperly positioned. 'Rather, this is a case about an adult man, Chloe's step grandfather who, as surveillance footage unquestionably confirms: (1) walked up to a window he was aware was open; (2) leaned his upper body out the window for several seconds; (3) reached down and picked up Chloe; and (4) then held her by and out of the open window for thirty four seconds before he lost his grip and dropped Chloe out of the window. 'His actions, which no reasonable person could have foreseen, were reckless and irresponsible and the sole reason why Chloe is no longer with her parents.' I think that the grandfather really thought there was glass there, but that it was still a stupid idea to pick her up and dangle her out there. Even if the window had been closed, she would have fallen and been injured. It was stupid to do even if there was glass, except that she would be alive. Still stupid. A three year sentence is light in exchange for a child's life.

Can we ask the cabin steward for a corkscrew, or should we bring one from home? P.S. I'd not only not leave a tip, I'd leave a note for the cabin steward about such poor service!