Jump to content

Who would ever let go of your child, even if there was no glass there?


Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, PG Cruiser said:

Having heard the Puerto Rico prosecutors say on TV that the surveillance video was a key piece of evidence, I think Puerto Rico does not have such restrictions.  But who knows? Defense lawyers have a fancy way of finding all those loopholes and technicalities.  Maybe they'll have Dr. Bull on their side.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, twangster said:

Ship policy can't override local law.  When a ship is in port it is subject to local law of that port. 

If under Puerto Rico law the use of surveillance cameras has restrictions then the local attorney representing the grandfather will try to use that to have the evidence blocked.   

Keep in mind that Puerto Rico is apart of the US and therefore the US Supreme Court ruling are the final say. The Ship surveillance cameras are legal and can be used in Court

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if there HAD been glass, i.e., the window was closed, she still would have fallen, because he let go of her with one of his arms and wasn't holding her securely enough with his other arm to keep her from falling. She would have fallen on the floor and maybe hurt herself, certainly would have cried, so he wasn't being responsible, period. He wasn't holding her safely.

I hope that the prosecution will find surveillance video that shows the grandfather had been drinking prior to the tragedy, and that the video will be admissible, which will explain how he could have exercised such poor judgement and the child should not have been left in his care. Maybe we need a new concept, the Designated Child Watcher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PG Cruiser said:

Having heard the Puerto Rico prosecutors say on TV that the surveillance video was a key piece of evidence, I think Puerto Rico does not have such restrictions.  But we'll never know... defense lawyers have a fancy way of finding all those loopholes and technicalities.  Maybe they'll have Dr. Bull on their side.

And if PR law disallowed this type of surveillance video, it never would have been viewed in the preliminary discovery hearing. It WILL be part of the criminal proceedings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tiny blonde said:

Even if there HAD been glass, i.e., the window was closed, she still would have fallen, because he let go of her with one of his arms and wasn't holding her securely enough with his other arm to keep her from falling. She would have fallen on the floor and maybe hurt herself, certainly would have cried, so he wasn't being responsible, period. He wasn't holding her safely.

I hope that the prosecution will find surveillance video that shows the grandfather had been drinking prior to the tragedy, and that the video will be admissible, which will explain how he could have exercised such poor judgement and the child should not have been left in his care. Maybe we need a new concept, the Designated Child Watcher.

I think I heard that the grandfather doesn’t drink and that he refused a breathalyzer. Can’t recall where I read that. But I do wonder if they are saying he doesn’t drink to cover for him. Even then, mom and grandmother as attorneys should know better than to lie in court evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TXcruzer said:

And if PR law disallowed this type of surveillance video, it never would have been viewed in the preliminary discovery hearing. It WILL be part of the criminal proceedings. 

I was thinking the same.  I think it will be too.  It is the biggest piece of unbiased evidence available and it would be sadly irresponsible to overlook it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far the family blamed RCL, ship captain, entire Freedom of The Sea crew, Puerto Rican laws, and possible protectionism of the cruise line for the Grandpa reckless actions.

At the beginning they called open to all pool area, baby play area than picture the Grandpa as good IT worker fully capable of caring for the child. . Now, they picture the Grandpa as a senile (at age 51?) individual who has serious vision problems and is color blind! However, he should not place the toddler on the narrow ledge by the window as it is against the RCL policy and defies common sense. Just before the Grandpa trial, they say he has poor vision and is color blind. Even if he is color blind, he said during the CBS interview and on one more occasion that he could feel the breeze and was compelled to seek the glass panel but could not find- IT guy and an average person should suspect the window could be OPEN! Although he knew that something was not right but put Chloe on the wedge anyway! Than, he stated on one occasion  that he did not know where the kid disappeared until he saw her falling, falling and falling outside the window! So he could see, right!

What we hear about the accident, he appeared to be confused, unable to think clearly - was he drunk, over-medicated, or suffering not only from the color blindness but perhaps Alzheimer? Otherwise, he was totally reckless. Nobody knows better than his family about his health problems. If there were serious impairments, they should not leave him in charge of the 18 months child. In addition to the parents, they had two sets of grandparents on the ship.

I do not think RCL should pay them a dime! Thousands of toddlers are on the RCL cruises and they do not fall from the ship!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Manana Chkadua said:

Thousands of toddlers are on the RCL cruises and they do not fall from the ship!

That "wall of glass with one open window in the kid's play area"  has been on the Freedom of the Seas since its maiden voyage in 2006.  In all those 13 years, we have heard of NO ONE falling off that window... UNTIL a color blind grandfather put his 18-month old granddaughter on the railing to "bang the glass like she does at hockey games".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, PG Cruiser said:

That "wall of glass with one open window in the kid's play area"  has been on the Freedom of the Seas since its maiden voyage in 2006.  In all those 13 years, we have heard of NO ONE falling off that window... UNTIL a color blind grandfather put his 18-month old granddaughter on the railing to "bang the glass like she does at hockey games".

This is the strongest argument I've read! Too bad it doesn't qualify as evidence, although I hope the prosecution gets to mention it anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, PG Cruiser said:

That "wall of glass with one open window in the kid's play area"  has been on the Freedom of the Seas since its maiden voyage in 2006.  In all those 13 years, we have heard of NO ONE falling off that window... UNTIL a color blind grandfather put his 18-month old granddaughter on the railing to "bang the glass like she does at hockey games".

I said something similar to a friend, just over 13 years without an incident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, PG Cruiser said:

That "wall of glass with one open window in the kid's play area"  has been on the Freedom of the Seas since its maiden voyage in 2006.  In all those 13 years, we have heard of NO ONE falling off that window... UNTIL a color blind grandfather put his 18-month old granddaughter on the railing to "bang the glass like she does at hockey games".

And also on the two other Freedom class ships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of things

  •   We were on Adventure only a few days after this occurring.  It was all the talk.  Many passengers even were walking over to the same area to try to figure out how it happened.  Everyone felt the same way, this was the grandfathers fault.  The kids pool/play area is not 5 feet a way, it is obvious you have to walk to it.  IOWS, pre-meditated regarding their intention was to go to the windows, it was not as if they grabbed and her as she ran to the windows and brought her back to the splash zone.
  •  The guard rail is 18-24 inches out from the window.  I was involved in 1 conversation where a passenger made the remark that this is not like your handrail on your staircase in your home (I.e. 3 inches from the wall), it is clearly apparent that the railing was placed away so that even a drunk passenger would be safe.

In the military color blindness is called color vision deficiency because there are varying levels.  Many kids wanting to serve in the Navy find out at 17/18 yo that they indeed are color vision deficiency.  Their desire of wanting to serve they pay out of pocket for more in depth testing, called the Farnsworth Lantern test.  I would not be shocked that since this test is used for the US Navy, that RCL goes and says, Mr. Arnelo we are demanding you take the Farnsworth aka FALANT vision test at our cost.  If I was an RCL attorney that is exactly what I would do.  I say that because it is strange that this issue is now being used as a defense.  In July when they did the media circuit, this medical issue was never broached.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, RBRSKI said:

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. 

I remember on the top deck of Anthem for sail away I was a safe distance from the railing and water. I still was afraid I’d drop even my phone overboard while taking pictures. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, WoodsCommaElle said:

I remember on the top deck of Anthem for sail away I was a safe distance from the railing and water. I still was afraid I’d drop even my phone overboard while taking pictures. 

Good point. I've taken a lot of pictures from the railing of cruise ships. It always scares me that I will drop my camera overboard and tend to make sure a lanyard is around my wrist. Holding a child up to the railing just makes no sense at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ditchdoc said:

Good point. I've taken a lot of pictures from the railing of cruise ships. It always scares me that I will drop my camera overboard and tend to make sure a lanyard is around my wrist. Holding a child up to the railing just makes no sense at all.

 

5 hours ago, WoodsCommaElle said:

I remember on the top deck of Anthem for sail away I was a safe distance from the railing and water. I still was afraid I’d drop even my phone overboard while taking pictures. 

This is the crux of their defense.  Everyone senses the danger of an open window so since he didn't you must draw the conclusion that he didn't know there was a window there.  

The video evidence may prove otherwise.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, twangster said:

 

This is the crux of their defense.  Everyone senses the danger of an open window so since he didn't you must draw the conclusion that he didn't know there was a window there.  

The video evidence may prove otherwise.  

Is that going to come before or after the hockey defense? Sorry my empathy for these people has hit rock bottom. (I do feel bad that they lost such a young, beautiful baby and are going through immense sadness around her birthday and the holidays. I don’t feel bad that they can’t keep a story straight and are acting like this happens all the time when not one of them has a shred of common sense that would have kept this baby alive.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, twangster said:

 

This is the crux of their defense.  Everyone senses the danger of an open window so since he didn't you must draw the conclusion that he didn't know there was a window there.  

The video evidence may prove otherwise.  

I there are different ways to comprehension and understanding.

 

If EVERYONE senses the danger of an open window EXCEPT this one person, how can the entire world be designed to accommodate this one person?

 

The ADA states that "reasonable accommodation" should be made for the handicapped. I would say a 40+ inch vertical distance and a 20+ inch horizontal distance to the lip of a window, before you fall, is pretty reasonable. It would take a concerted effort to over come that barrier that a reasonable person would not attempt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, twangster said:

You can't assume anything from a profession.  There are dumb doctors, dumb IT people and some really pathetic lawyers.

True. There is "book smarts" and there is "common sense". I have known some PhD's that could not pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't confirm this is true, but I read on another website that Sam Annello appears to have numerous tickets over the last few years (around 10) for speeding and not wearing a seatbelt.  If this is true, it clearly displays a pattern of recklessness and willingness to disregard safety rules.  You would think a man who's married to an attorney, who's stepdaughter is an attorney and who's stepson is a police officer would have more respect for the law and his and other people's safety.  Didn't any of them ever ride with him while he was driving?  If so, how do they justify their entrusting him with the care and safe keeping of their daughter / granddaughter?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Grandpa has/had another court appearance today, or a pre-trial conference was scheduled. Looking forward to the latest on that. 

Edit: He was offered a plea deal. It seems like he’d be getting off too easy to me. Minimum probation and supervision? Basically he’d be walking scot-free? But I’m not a lawyer so it’s possible I don’t get this fully:

https://wsbt.com/news/local/local-grandfather-charged-in-cruise-ship-death-of-toddler-offered-plea-deal

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, WoodsCommaElle said:

I believe Grandpa has/had another court appearance today, or a pre-trial conference was scheduled. Looking forward to the latest on that. 

Edit: He was offered a plea deal. It seems like he’d be getting off too easy to me. Minimum probation and supervision? Basically he’d be walking scot-free? But I’m not a lawyer so it’s possible I don’t get this fully:

https://wsbt.com/news/local/local-grandfather-charged-in-cruise-ship-death-of-toddler-offered-plea-deal

 

He would be crazy not to take it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/16/2019 at 9:45 AM, Zambia-Zaire said:

I, for one, don't see how the "color blind" defense will hold up scientifically, in a court of law. A color blind person can still distinguish between different shade or tints (clear & tinted, lite or dark) of the window panels.

Correct. My son has red-green color blindness or color vision deficiency, and although he (and this does vary by person) has difficulty distinguishing black from navy blue from a dark purple or bottle green, he can see that there is "color" there. In other words, he could distinguish a "clear" window from a "tinted" window, although he may interpret the actual color differently from you or me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, PG Cruiser said:

But taking a plea deal might jeopardize their case against Royal

Agreed!  If it were me, deep down I would know I was wrong.   I would not want to do jail time and would probably take that deal.  Not taking the deal could mean jail time and lots of it.  What good is money if you can't use it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well again it just seems like the grandfather and parents are doing anything to avoid responsibility. The Daily Mail just reported on the plea deal as well, and his refusal made more sense to me when one of the commenters pointed out that if he takes the plea deal he’s admitting that it’s his fault.

As of last week, the family was still saying they blame Royal for the baby’s death. I guess they need to decide if they want to sing a different tune or accept that Pops might not get off as easy in front of a jury.

The Daily Mail also said that his lawyer is planning to get his medical records to use in the trial. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, WoodsCommaElle said:

Well again it just seems like the grandfather and parents are doing anything to avoid responsibility. The Daily Mail just reported on the plea deal as well, and his refusal made more sense to me when one of the commenters pointed out that if he takes the plea deal he’s admitting that it’s his fault.

As of last week, the family was still saying they blame Royal for the baby’s death. I guess they need to decide if they want to sing a different tune or accept that Pops might not get off as easy in front of a jury.

The Daily Mail also said that his lawyer is planning to get his medical records to use in the trial. 

Being a fan of the show "Bull", I'm imagining the lawyer at jury selection making sure none of the jury members have ever gone on a cruise ship, especially a Freedom class ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, YOLO said:

Agreed!  If it were me, deep down I would know I was wrong.   I would not want to do jail time and would probably take that deal.  Not taking the deal could mean jail time and lots of it.  What good is money if you can't use it?

Ah, but here's the grandfather's opportunity to "make it up" to his step-children and his wife by refusing the plea deal so they can go ahead with the suit against Royal and maybe at least get rich because of his negligence. 

Personally, I hope he takes the plea deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like public opinion is swaying back towards “this man has suffered enough; he shouldn’t be charged at all.” 

I’ll keep that in mind if I ever cause harm to my pets (don’t have kids) to the point it kills them. I would never hurt one of my dogs intentionally. So let’s say I leave my dog in a hot or cold car and the weather conditions kill them. I can just say “But I feel really sad! I am suffering enough!” and get off in the eyes of the law? Is this really the precedent people want to set? Sorry, I was raised to deal with my mistakes. I seriously question people who think this man should just walk away with no consequence. When will people understand that he looked out the window for about 30 seconds to a minute and still held her up and still claimed to be clueless about the opening? 

By the way, maybe the Wiegands would do well to read a story about this boy who died when he was run over in a truck driven by his father. The kid fell off the truck; he didn’t die because the dad was speeding or was driving recklessly or texting. Therefore, that is an accident where there should be no charges:

https://people.com/human-interest/tennessee-boy-dies-christmas-parade-accident/?utm_campaign=peoplemag&utm_source=facebook.com&xid=socialflow_facebook_peoplemag&utm_medium=social

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WoodsCommaElle said:

It seems like public opinion is swaying back towards “this man has suffered enough; he shouldn’t be charged at all.” 

I’ll keep that in mind if I ever cause harm to my pets (don’t have kids) to the point it kills them. I would never hurt one of my dogs intentionally. So let’s say I leave my dog in a hot or cold car and the weather conditions kill them. I can just say “But I feel really sad! I am suffering enough!” and get off in the eyes of the law? Is this really the precedent people want to set? Sorry, I was raised to deal with my mistakes. I seriously question people who think this man should just walk away with no consequence. When will people understand that he looked out the window for about 30 seconds to a minute and still held her up and still claimed to be clueless about the opening? 

By the way, maybe the Wiegands would do well to read a story about this boy who died when he was run over in a truck driven by his father. The kid fell off the truck; he didn’t die because the dad was speeding or was driving recklessly or texting. Therefore, that is an accident where there should be no charges:

https://people.com/human-interest/tennessee-boy-dies-christmas-parade-accident/?utm_campaign=peoplemag&utm_source=facebook.com&xid=socialflow_facebook_peoplemag&utm_medium=social

 

 

My reason for hoping the grandfather will take the plea deal is because it will require him to plead guilty, therefore making it difficult to impossible for the family to sue RCCL. I want him to admit his guilt, rather than try to defend himself and possibly get acquitted, which would bolster the family's case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, tiny blonde said:

My reason for hoping the grandfather will take the plea deal is because it will require him to plead guilty, therefore making it difficult to impossible for the family to sue RCCL. I want him to admit his guilt, rather than try to defend himself and possibly get acquitted, which would bolster the family's case. 

I agree with you. It will be interesting to see if the family pulls their lawsuit. IANAL, but if this were me, I’d take the plea deal. The parents have defended the grandfather and openly disagreed with the charges the whole time. If they are smart they’d tell him to let himself off the hook. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I wonder is how it is  working with the attorneys?  You know the criminal attorney is saying take the deal bc it is probation.  My husband and I were discussing this..  Legally he will probably be found guilty (remove emotions, just the facts) and at sentencing the judge can than give him probation (where emotion can be used)   Either way the civil case is at jeopardy.  

Just spit balling here, but I think that the civil attorney is now coming hard at Royal hoping that they will settle before he goes to court.  Royal on the flip side will say, we like our chances, and will want to wait to see how the criminal case goes.  

FWIW, do I think he has suffered enough?  Heck, yes.  Would I convict him of negligence?  Yes.  I would than plead to the judge to give him probation.  The fact is PR is too far down the rabbit hole to drop the charges.  The family has to hope that the jury will remove the facts, and vote emotionally.  That brings us back to jury selection.  The criminal attorney will want jurors that will see him in pain, and the prosecutor will want jurors that see the case as factual.  

My question is will RCL pay for a person like Dr. Phil (remember he was a jury consultant for Oprah) aka Bull to be a consultant for the prosecution?  I don't know if that is even legal for them to do, but if it is my bet is RCL is doing that.  I would also bet that the civilian attorney is also willing to pay for a consultant for the criminal case.  Both sides are invested financially when it comes to the verdict regarding the criminal case.

To me the saddest part is as stated earlier, only the attorneys are winning here.  Nothing will bring back their sweet child.  I can only imagine that this is making the healing process of their loss even harder.  I would just want now to move on and have my family endure less stress.  There are 5 stages of grief.   I am not sure if they are still in stage 1...denial or stage 2, anger.  Denial, because they are still saying it was RCL's fault.  If that video does indeed show the grandfather looking out the window b4 picking her up, than they are in denial.  If he is not taking the plea deal it might be because of anger.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The surveillance video from the ship was leaked and aired on a TV program in PR yesterday. It clearly shows him leaning over the railing and sticking his head out the open window before he leans over to pick up the child.     Also, per the local media (several sources), the prosecutors stated that there have not been any offers or negotiations for a plea bargain. The prosecutors said that a plea bargain has not even been considered yet, although this possibility has not been discarded. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...