Jump to content
MattCasey

Freedom of the Seas Fatality?

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, twangster said:

The video will be a critical piece of evidence.  I wonder how hard they will try to get it thrown out.  They may try to argue it violated their privacy or some other improper use they didn't agree to or under some Puerto Rico law they can't use surveillance cameras so the video should not be allowed into evidence. 

I don't know if this would apply... it does include a broad "or otherwise" in the describing the use of photos and videos.  (This was from the Guest Ticket Booklet for my 2017 Harmony sailing)

image.thumb.png.ac2dc1beed6fca6caa27e3c312b2fae4.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, PG Cruiser said:

I don't know if this would apply... it does include a broad "or otherwise" in the describing the use of photos and videos.  (This was from the Guest Ticket Booklet for my 2017 Harmony sailing)

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.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, PG Cruiser said:

I'm not a lawyer but I found this on this site: https://legaldictionary.net/negligent-homicide/

image.thumb.png.f5634eeb2b838a5dfb98e3c4cfc350f0.png

It's becoming clear why they're pushing the narrative about the grandfather's colorblindness and the "I thought there was glass" angle. It will be their defense against Element #1 saying "he wasn't aware of the risks..."

 

I am not a lawyer either. But I would think that even #1 is a game changer. Royal’s guest policy even says that guests are prohibited from sitting on the railings and everyone receives the policy in the cruise documents. Being color blind doesn’t mean he can also be unaware that no one should be sitting on railings. It was in the rules he agreed to. I’m not attacking you, PG, but the fact that he received the guest confide policy (that is also easily found online) negates the color blind excuse. 

Share this post


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

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.   

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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!

Share this post


Link to post
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".

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
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.) 

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...