Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

https://fox59.com/2020/01/17/royal-caribbean-says-video-unquestionably-proves-grandfather-knew-window-was-open-before-dropping-toddler/

 

In a nut shell:

" Anello leans his upper-torso over the wooden railing and out of the window frame for approximately eight seconds. "

" Anello stays in front of the open window, which was 11 decks high off the ground, while holding Chloe for approximately 34 seconds before she fell. "

"Royal Caribbean says the “only reasonable conclusion from the video” is that Anello knew the window was open before lifting Chloe over the wooden rail and holding her out the open window for a “considerable period,” thus “recklessly endangering her life.” "

To me .... 34 seconds is new ... and pretty dreadful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s just all so heart breaking sad all around. I’ve felt from the start the Grandfather was 100% at fault for this tragedy. I understand his denial it must be a very heavy burden to carry in his heart much less admit to.
 

The lawsuit and tv interviews the parents gave were also heartbreaking to watch.   I suppose I can understand the need to blame an outside party for the tragic death of your child.
 

Now with the release of the video showing he definitely held little Chloe out an open window. I pray the parents drop the lawsuit and move on. Puerto Rico should offer Anello a plea deal admit guilt and have probation for a set time.  There’s been enough heart break. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While police and law enforcement officers around the country fight the battle to earn the respect they deserve, I've lost all respect for the South Bend Indiana Police Department for continuing to support Alan Wiegand given that he and his wife (a prosecutor herself) continue to sue Royal Caribbean when the video footage clearly shows the step-grandfather leaning his upper torso OUT the open window and then holding the child OUT the window for 34 seconds before dropping her!  How can anyone in South Bend, Indiana rely on the police or Alan Wiegand to properly determine if a crime has been committed and how can a court of law rely on their judgement and testimony when they have clearly demonstrated that their judgement is impaired and seriously flawed! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TXcruzer said:

A plea deal was offered and summarily rejected by the defense. 

I don't know if the media got that right.  At one point they claimed no plea deal had been offered.  I think his lawyer suggested he wouldn't accept a plea deal because he is innocent and the media assumed that a deal had been offered and rejected.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jjohnb said:

While police and law enforcement officers around the country fight the battle to earn the respect they deserve, I've lost all respect for the South Bend Indiana Police Department for continuing to support Alan Wiegand given that he and his wife (a prosecutor herself) continue to sue Royal Caribbean when the video footage clearly shows the step-grandfather leaning his upper torso OUT the open window and then holding the child OUT the window for 34 seconds before dropping her!  How can anyone in South Bend, Indiana rely on the police or Alan Wiegand to properly determine if a crime has been committed and how can a court of law rely on their judgement and testimony when they have clearly demonstrated that their judgement is impaired and seriously flawed! 

It's called the blue wall.  Police stand up for each other and overlook what is obvious to the masses.  It's not just this law enforcement agency that does so.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, twangster said:

I don't know if the media got that right.  At one point they claimed no plea deal had been offered.  I think his lawyer suggested he wouldn't accept a plea deal because he is innocent and the media assumed that a deal had been offered and rejected.

 

Thanks for the insight, I just remember reading the reports of the offer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't say I know how Anello feels about it. Many are saying he is devastated about it, as any rational person should be.

But then, is any man that holds a child out an 11 story window rational?

At first I felt sorry for him and his anguish is a suitable punishment.

Now I am not so sure. Perhaps he should be trialed, convicted and spend the rest of his days in a PR prison.

The man was apparently egregiously stupid.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I would have more respect and feelings for him (and the family) if they would have admitted his guilt and negligence.  

The whole "not me, it must be someone else's fault" approach in the face of clear and damning evidence has influenced my view of his situation and not in a good way for him (or the family).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tiny blonde said:

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.

I can agree with this and can even understand why the parents initially wanted to sue.  However, once they move past that rage phase, at some point they have to look at the reality of the situation.  (I started to write "look at the evidence" but I'm not sure I could actually watch video of my child's death.  But by now, someone must have told them what the video shows.)  They must be hoping for a sympathetic jury so they don't have to accept the grandfather's guilt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Atlantix2000 said:

I can agree with this and can even understand why the parents initially wanted to sue.  However, once they move past that rage phase, at some point they have to look at the reality of the situation.  (I started to write "look at the evidence" but I'm not sure I could actually watch video of my child's death.  But by now, someone must have told them what the video shows.)  They must be hoping for a sympathetic jury so they don't have to accept the grandfather's guilt.

They've had the video for some time.  They were trying to keep it out of the hands of the media.  When it went public they were very upset.  They know what it shows and have for a while now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, twangster said:
22 minutes ago, Atlantix2000 said:

I can agree with this and can even understand why the parents initially wanted to sue.  However, once they move past that rage phase, at some point they have to look at the reality of the situation.  (I started to write "look at the evidence" but I'm not sure I could actually watch video of my child's death.  But by now, someone must have told them what the video shows.)  They must be hoping for a sympathetic jury so they don't have to accept the grandfather's guilt.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, twangster said:

They've had the video for some time.  They were trying to keep it out of the hands of the media.  When it went public they were very upset.  They know what it shows and have for a while now.

I for one am glad the video has gone public and that RCCL has made a public statement to the effect that they hold no responsibility for the negligent actions of an adult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, twangster said:

I think I would have more respect and feelings for him (and the family) if they would have admitted his guilt and negligence.  

The whole "not me, it must be someone else's fault" approach in the face of clear and damning evidence has influenced my view of his situation and not in a good way for him (or the family).

This is exactly how I feel.  I feel for the child that her life was taken from her.   In honor of Chloe the grandfather should have admitted guilt and spoke to other people about how he made a terrible judgement in lifting Chloe up and putting her at risk.  I could of felt more sympathy for him and Chloe’s family, but the rush to sue and make excuses for what happened changed my feelings toward the grandfather and family.  After that it was about Chloe and no one was taking responsibility for what happened to her and her fear during the last seconds of her life.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have no words at this point for anyone who continues to defend this grandfather and the parents. The parents should just do the right thing at this point and have their civil suit dismissed. 

I keep saying this is a terrible accident, but at some point, the grandpa has to be held accountable. I’m in my 30s and even I can’t stand how personal responsibility is a dying concept in today’s society. Always blame someone else. Always go for the lawsuit and the money. As if that will bring your baby back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the parents lawsuit against Royal Caribbean should be dismissed and negligent homicide charges against the grandfather should be pursued. I hope he will be convicted of the charges. There is so much lying in this case that I do not know whether it is not an intentional accident:

1. Grandpa put the child over the safety barrier and on the window ledge which is a reckless and negligent action by any child guardian. The window ledge never will by a safe baby play area,

2. The Grandpa claims he is color blind. However, this has nothing to do in determining whether the window is close or open. He said on a national TV that he felt a  breeze and could not feel the window panel. I never found a person that cannot determine whether window is close or open. Also, he admitted that he was not quite certain whether the window was closed but after sticking his head and upper torso outside the window, he decided to put the child there. It was at best a reckless action leading to the negligent homicide charges.

3. While at the PR precinct, he refused to take a blood test claiming his medication would produce false positive. So our IT man is quite smart but yet, he claims he could not determine whether the window was open. Something is fishy here. People take drugs, painkillers, oxycodons and other recreational drugs not to mention booze. Apparently, he was hiding something which would explain his erratic behavior( putting the child on the ledge of the open window and than dropping her out of the window). 

4. Also, right after the accident was announced all over news, next we know they already have the maritime lawyer. Hmm, did they anticipated the need for him?

Over, all if the grandpa was not related to a cop, he would be arrested, thrown in jail and the blood test would be done. I feel sorry for the girl but I hope that her parents get nothing and eventually recognize that it was entirely the grandpa fault. I do not think they should profit from the poor kid's death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2020 at 2:33 PM, twangster said:

I think I would have more respect and feelings for him (and the family) if they would have admitted his guilt and negligence.  

The whole "not me, it must be someone else's fault" approach in the face of clear and damning evidence has influenced my view of his situation and not in a good way for him (or the family).

This is exactly how I feel.  I feel for the child that her life was taken from her.   In honor of Chloe the grandfather should have admitted guilt and spoke to other people about how he made a terrible judgement in lifting Chloe up and putting her at risk.  I could of felt more sympathy for him and Chloe’s family, but the rush to sue and make excuses for what happened changed my feelings toward the grandfather and family.  After that it was about Chloe and no one was taking responsibility for what happened to her and her fear during the last seconds of her life.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly there is a part of me that feels the grandfather planned this. It appears to me on the video that he took his time walking to the window, leaning over and looking out the window, then picking up his granddaughter and putting her life in danger, knowing the window was open and it was a long drop to the ground.  So sorry for these feelings, but my heart is with this little girl and the last seconds of her short life.  The more the family pushes “it was the cruise lines fault” the more I begin to wonder if it really was.   Now the lawyer wants the videos dismissed!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PattiHere said:

Sadly there is a part of me that feels the grandfather planned this. It appears to me on the video that he took his time walking to the window, leaning over and looking out the window, then picking up his granddaughter and putting her life in danger, knowing the window was open and it was a long drop to the ground.  So sorry for these feelings, but my heart is with this little girl and the last seconds of her short life.  The more the family pushes “it was the cruise lines fault” the more I begin to wonder if it really was.   Now the lawyer wants the videos dismissed!  

I'm somewhat surprised CBS broke this video.  It seems the media would like nothing more than to take down one of these giant cruise lines with all those ships burning all that fuel and dumping trash in the ocean (their perspective... not mine).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PattiHere said:

Sadly there is a part of me that feels the grandfather planned this. It appears to me on the video that he took his time walking to the window, leaning over and looking out the window, then picking up his granddaughter and putting her life in danger, knowing the window was open and it was a long drop to the ground.  So sorry for these feelings, but my heart is with this little girl and the last seconds of her short life.  The more the family pushes “it was the cruise lines fault” the more I begin to wonder if it really was.   Now the lawyer wants the videos dismissed!  

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tiny blonde said:

Of course the lawyer wants the videos dismissed! This lawsuit is going to be a very fierce battle.

I for one am very glad that in this particular instance, Royal is not simply "rolling over" and going directly to arbitration. I'm betting the lawyer firmly believed this is what they'd do based on his past experience, and wasn't banking on Royal having such comprehensive and damning video of the whole event. Instead, after having their reputation dragged through the mud by him and this family, Royal appears to have decided to go to the mat with this slime ball and the family that he's roped in. They pushed too hard and too fast and left Royal with no real choice but to take this all the way through and clear their own name.

And if / when Royal wins, you can bet the family will be paying the slime ball for all of his legal fees and related expenses. He will come out on top (financially, anyway) no matter what. Royal already appears to be turning around the court of public opinion, and (sadly) that is probably the biggest part nowadays of being able to then win in the court of law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, JLMoran said:

And if / when Royal wins, you can bet the family will be paying the slime ball for all of his legal fees and related expenses. He will come out on top (financially, anyway) no matter what. 

I hope he took on the case pro bono where he won't get paid unless he wins.  Not that I want the family to avoid having to pay him out of pocket, but I want the atty to not be paid at all even more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following is an except from an article on the Fox News website.

 

Michael Winkleman, an attorney for the Wiegands, has since called Royal Caribbean’s motion to dismiss “baseless.”

“It is clear that Royal Caribbean’s tactic is to blame Chloe’s grandfather rather than to accept that Royal Caribbean did not implement industry standards for toddler safety aboard its ships which ultimately led to Chloe’s tragic death,” Winkleman said, in part, in a statement shared with Fox 43.

Winkleman further claimed that Royal Caribbean was supplying “two deceptive views from its CCTV cameras.”

On Friday, attorneys for the family filed two further motions: one to strike the video footage, claiming the "the authenticity of the videos" had not been established; and another asking the court to make Royal Caribbean "to produce all video footage from all of the cameras," of which Winkleman had said there were 13 in total.

 

The video footage seems pretty conclusive in my eyes. Even allowing for camera angles the grandfather was a long way outside the window. He would have banged his head on the glass if the window was closed.

The court would have received the videos directly from Royal Caribbean so I don't believe you can dispute their authenticity without implying some kind of conspiracy occurring in the background.

I suppose if you can exclude all the evidence that proves something to be true then anything is possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all filter what we see with our own emotions and interpretations. Our minds need to interpret what we see. Unfortunately, the family might not be able to emotionally accept what we see. If RC is not to blame then the reality of what the grandfather did might be too much for them to handle now and possibly always.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am so baffled that anyone is defending the parents and grandfather at this point. Granted that number is shrinking with the video evidence being loud and clear, but I can only think that anyone taking the family’s side knows them. Mom and Dad have to be the dumbest prosecutor and cop in the country to ask that the surveillance be thrown out. I don’t even care about their feelings at this point. 

Lots of people have gone to jail for not meaning to kill someone. Why should the grandfather get off? What if he had sent a text while driving and Chloe died in the backseat? Should he still get off just because he feels sad? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, WoodsCommaElle said:

I am so baffled that anyone is defending the parents and grandfather at this point. Granted that number is shrinking with the video evidence being loud and clear, but I can only think that anyone taking the family’s side knows them. Mom and Dad have to be the dumbest prosecutor and cop in the country to ask that the surveillance be thrown out. I don’t even care about their feelings at this point. 

Lots of people have gone to jail for not meaning to kill someone. Why should the grandfather get off? What if he had sent a text while driving and Chloe died in the backseat? Should he still get off just because he feels sad? 

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.

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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...