Caj27

He is not admitting to the facts, but he is accepting the guilty plea, which means he is saying, "Guilty."

I've had an opportunity now to sail a number of different ships since this tragic incident.  Everytime I see a window like this I've tried my best to pretend or preconceive that there is no window in an attempt to have an open mind and try to see if there is anyway, somehow, someone might not know a window is window.
Without exception even the change in air pressure was a tell-tale sign.  I've tried squinting, I've close my eyes briefly, I've worn polarizing sunglasses to reduce glare.  I couldn't trick myself into believing there was no window.
I simply can't accept he didn't know the window was open.  Given the child was at floor level looking through the glass I am all but convinced he not only knew the window was open, but lifted her up with the deliberate intention to look out the open window compared to looking through the tinted and possibly sea salt covered glass at floor level.
I've done something along these lines when my kids were young but never going so far to place them in danger of falling over a railing or through a window.  I always approached it so that even if I did drop them the worst case is they would land at my feet.  Often this meant standing back away from a railing so they could see but there would be no way for them to go over.  He didn't do that, instead he was leaning out the window with her.  It was poor judgement and bad decision making on his part.  
I'm glad to see the company respond to the case and defend itself after months of ridiculous and false accusations.   
In all my sailings before or after I've never seen anyone bring a child up to a higher level on the glass wall, window or no window, to look out.  It simply never happens because there is glass at floor level for children to look through.  There is no need to lift a child higher to have the same view they already have at floor level.  
"To touch the glass" was his excuse.  The child was already touching the glass at floor level.  

I don’t know why it even matters if the grandfather knew the window was open or closed.  If he hadn’t disobeyed ship rules by lifting the baby over the hand railing she would still be alive.  This family just seems out to make a profit from their baby’s death.  They keep spreading deceptive remarks about the cruise ship to get support for their unfounded lawsuit.  They immediately called the accident location a “children’s play area” while the video shows a bar near the open window — clearly not the children’s play area.  Saying the truth that gramps and Chloe were hanging out near the pool bar when gramps lifted her out an open window doesn’t bode well with their lawsuit so they twist the truth.  I read that the grandfather said at first he felt responsible for Chloe’s death but now he blames the cruise line.  Gramps needs to be found guilty of negligent homicide so he understands that he alone is responsible for Chloe’s death.  It disgusts me that this litigious family can’t take responsibility for their own actions, that they trusted a moron with their baby and his negligence caused her death.  It’s not always someone else’s fault.

While I was on the Navigator for thanksgiving, I stood in the same area that the grandfather stood with his granddaughter, now I am 6'1, with my two feet firmly on the ground with my lower chest against the teak railing I looked over the window frame to the outside.  I felt uncomfortable, I wouldn't  put a bag, drink or anything (especially a young child) on that part of the ship. Very poor poor decision on the grandfathers part.  And shame on the family to use RCCL as the scape goat!  And of course this is my opinion.