Jump to content
MattCasey

Freedom of the Seas Fatality?

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, twangster said:

If this is true it's pretty damaging to the family's claim against Royal.  It appears Grandpa screwed up, made a tragic mistake.  

The family attorney is simply stating that which he was told by the family.  It's entirely possible Grandpa said this to parents and the parents told the family attorney.  It's not legal testimony at this point so it doesn't have to be 100% factual, just like the attorney's claim this occurred in a "kids play area".  Nothing the family attorney says at this point has to be factually 100% accurate, he is free to claim whatever he wants in the media.  Whether he would try to do so in a courtroom is another matter.  

Keep in mind the family attorney is just representing the parents in a potential case against Royal.  He is not Grandpa's lawyer representing Grandpa in a defense capacity for the charges filed against Grandpa.  The family attorney's only goal at this point is keep his potential claim alive and in motion.

Excellent point! That explains why the attorney for the grandfather is not Mr. Winkelman. Defense attorneys will (hopefully) call witnesses to ask if anyone heard the grandfather yell, "I thought there was glass!" There were other people there, they would have heard it. If no one heard it, the defense's case will be weakened.

I think Grandpa goofed, and I'm sure he's suffering. I've known two parents who in separate incidents accidentally backed the car over their child and killed them, and were forever afterward known for that, and I'm sure seldom knew a happy day for the rest of their lives. When my daughter was killed by a drunk driver, the driver was charged by the state for homicide, and frankly it didn't matter to me at all. All that mattered was that my daughter was gone, and over thirty years later that's still all that matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, twangster said:

If this is true it's pretty damaging to the family's claim against Royal.  It appears Grandpa screwed up, made a tragic mistake.

Agreed.  If the grandfather is found liable, then I would doubt that RCL would have any responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, tiny blonde said:

Excellent point! That explains why the attorney for the grandfather is not Mr. Winkelman. Defense attorneys will (hopefully) call witnesses to ask if anyone heard the grandfather yell, "I thought there was glass!" There were other people there, they would have heard it. If no one heard it, the defense's case will be weakened.

I think Grandpa goofed, and I'm sure he's suffering. I've known two parents who in separate incidents accidentally backed the car over their child and killed them, and were forever afterward known for that, and I'm sure seldom knew a happy day for the rest of their lives. When my daughter was killed by a drunk driver, the driver was charged by the state for homicide, and frankly it didn't matter to me at all. All that mattered was that my daughter was gone, and over thirty years later that's still all that matters.

Sorry for your loss.  

Indeed this is devastating to the family without question and their lives forever altered.  The family attorney is attempting to leverage that emotion against the big faceless corporation.

10 minutes ago, YOLO said:

Agreed.  If the grandfather is found liable, then I would doubt that RCL would have any responsibility.

Their attorney will watch the case against Grandpa carefully because it will have an impact on his client's claim.  A lot of evidence and testimony from that case will inflate or deflate the family's claim against Royal.      

If his claim goes to court he could try to have any video evidence in his case thrown out.  He's likely comb through the evidence from Grandpa's trial and try to get any damning evidence thrown out or develop a strategy to diminish it.  Royal isn't in the clear if Grandpa is found guilty.  It's a whole separate case potentially in a different court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, YOLO said:

@tiny blonde  Sorry for you loss.

Thanks, YOLO, and others who have extended condolences. It's appreciated, but not necessary - I've learned to live with it. Because "It" doesn't go away. That's the thing, we don't 
"get over it," we learn to live with it. I hope the family of Chloe Weigand will find a way to live with the pain, and go on to live full and even happy lives, as I have. I'm happy with my new husband and surviving daughter, and still miss my "baby." I'm sure there are many more grieving parents among us who still enjoy life, especially cruising!! And carry our pain along for the cruise, and think about it only at certain times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, YOLO said:

"They walk over to a wall of windows, where Anello appears to look over the railing, through an open window. He picks Chloe up and stands her up on the railing — and they appear to lean over, to peer out over the port."

 

This possibly suggest something much more sinister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This family gets my sympathy for their loss but their actions and statements puts me on the defensive for Royal.   On the Today Show this morning, they're still pushing the narrative about the windows being close to the children's play area and the grandfather's statement, "I thought there was glass".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are they even doing public appearances and interviews? The whole situation is very suspect. Are they really trying to make a case to sue Royal? The court of public opinion is not going to sway grandpa's criminal trial. Are they just trying to get a payday? Bizarre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, BB1 said:

Why are they even doing public appearances and interviews? The whole situation is very suspect. Are they really trying to make a case to sue Royal? The court of public opinion is not going to sway grandpa's criminal trial. Are they just trying to get a payday? Bizarre.

Probably both get grandpa found not guilty and a payday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BB1 said:

Why are they even doing public appearances and interviews? The whole situation is very suspect. Are they really trying to make a case to sue Royal? The court of public opinion is not going to sway grandpa's criminal trial. Are they just trying to get a payday? Bizarre.

TV programs need something to air, they have this huge block of time and they have to present something the public is interested in. So they invite the Weigands and the Weigands are flattered by the invitation and eager to tell their story, make their case, which is, "Not our fault!" The parents are carrying guilt, too, because they entrusted the child to Grandpa. If he were merely a babysitter and not Grandpa, they'd be blaming him. They have to blame somebody, because they are being hounded by guilt. "I shouldn't have asked Pop to take the baby, he's old." "I should have been holding her myself." "I knew I shouldn't have been in the spa getting a massage." "I'm a failure as a mother/father." etc.

When my daughter was killed (thank you for your sympathy, no need to tell me, I know you care), the media jumped on it and asked me to do interviews, but my friends protected me. Still, after my friends left, I found myself accepting invitations, because I wanted the world to know how much I was hurting.

So that's why they're doing public appearances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PG Cruiser said:

This family gets my sympathy for their loss but their actions and statements puts me on the defensive for Royal.   On the Today Show this morning, they're still pushing the narrative about the windows being close to the children's play area and the grandfather's statement, "I thought there was glass".

This morning's coverage on The Today Show again had to mention that it occurred in a "children's play area".  That really aggravates me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s a new spin the grandfather is claiming in his defense. He did not see the difference between the open and closed (tinted) windows because he is colorblind.

I’m shaking my head at this because even on a still day while at port, one can feel the breeze going through the open windows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is  no defense. They are grasping at straws. It was just plain negligence. People empathize because of their own previous experiences but this has nothing to do with what happened to them. This is a totally different situation.  It's a  totally unnecessary tragedy but that does not get people off the hook for their actions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not colorblind but I was always under the impression that color blindness caused certain colors to be diminished or appear to be a different color.  Maybe red appears yellow while blue is blue sort of thing.  However there remains the concept of levels of light intensity even absent of all color.

In grayscale the intensity or brightness of an open window versus a tinted window versus the double tinting effect of the open window overlapped with the fixed tinted window creates at least three shade levels. 

An open window would appear much brighter than the fixed tinted glass and where the tinted window was slid over the fixed tinted glass next to it that double tinting is evident even in grayscale.  

678750401_FRaccidentGray.jpg.75e649f7e3aa772696e048b6d5ba8a16.jpg

Then there are the other senses. 

The movement of air through an open window is undeniable.  Wind against the massive sides of a building or ship exerts pressure and when it finds an opening such as a window air moves through the window.  This effect occurs even on a relatively still day.

The sounds of a busy port like forklifts loading luggage, trucks moving around, the beep, beep, beep of backup alarms on various equipment, dock workers yelling at each to be heard over all the noises of a busy dock.  All that sound isn't heard on the pool deck except if you are near an open window.

Put it all together, the different light intensity, the movement of air and the sounds of a busy dock when all put together are data sources that provide clues to the brain. 

Diminishing one sensation shouldn't prevent the conclusion that something is different, the window is open.

Put on a pair of sunglass like the ones that make everything look rose colored, or everything appear bluish and you can still discern an open window from a fixed tinted pane of glass.

Try holding your phone and taking a picture through the fixed tinted glass.  No problem.  Take a step in front of an open window and you have an involuntary reaction that causes a death grip on your phone for fear you might drop it through the open window.  You don't need to tell yourself "The window is open, there is a danger".  It's an involuntary reaction and awareness that there is a danger present near an open window.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, of all the window panes to approach, he chose that one to look out, so he knew something was different about that one.  His story would have made more sense if all the windows had been open and looked and felt the same, then he could say he thought that's how all closed windows looked and felt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Ogalthorpe Haywood said:

The Grandfather is being charged with negligent homicide. I don’t know if that necessary but neither is trying to sue Royal Caribbean. 

Understand the sentiment.  The charges come from Puerto Rico, not from Royal. 

When a child dies each jurisdiction has its own practices.  If a child is left in a hot car, if a child is run over in their driveway, if a child is malnourished or denied medical care, if a drunk parent crashes a car, etc..  Each has circumstances involved and potential sentence varies by jurisdiction.  

The argument that family has suffered enough is for a judge in a court to decide not an investigator or district attorney.  It could be a guilty verdict will take into account the grief the accused has endured when it comes to sentencing.  It could be there lacks enough evidence to satisfy the charge.  

If the accused had picked up a stranger’s child and accidentally dropped them leading to a death does that change anything?   Should the family connection be the deciding factor that charges are warranted or not?  

I don’t know. So the safe thing to do is let the court handle it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/3/2019 at 7:19 PM, twangster said:

Understand the sentiment.  The charges come from Puerto Rico, not from Royal. 

When a child dies each jurisdiction has its own practices.  If a child is left in a hot car, if a child is run over in their driveway, if a child is malnourished or denied medical care, if a drunk parent crashes a car, etc..  Each has circumstances involved and potential sentence varies by jurisdiction.  

The argument that family has suffered enough is for a judge in a court to decide not an investigator or district attorney.  It could be a guilty verdict will take into account the grief the accused has endured when it comes to sentencing.  It could be there lacks enough evidence to satisfy the charge.  

If the accused had picked up a stranger’s child and accidentally dropped them leading to a death does that change anything?   Should the family connection be the deciding factor that charges are warranted or not?  

I don’t know. So the safe thing to do is let the court handle it.  

Who said that Royal was charging him? My point was that I think it’s unnecessary to charge the man, It was a tragic accident. The grandfather is not a danger to society putting him in jail wouldn’t really accomplish anything. 

Share this post


Link to post
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...