Grandpa from Cruise ship tragedy charged

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, I wasn't aware that the mom was an attorney although I did know that the dad was a cop. I guess professionally they knew that Grandpa could be in big trouble and were trying to get the cruise ship to accept blame for the incident. It's probably been more a matter of mitigating any further damage to their family (court costs for Grandpa along with him possibly going to jail). Plus, they probably *needed* to believe that the cruise ship was responsible for this nightmare. Believing that Grandpa was responsible was too much for all of them...

I agree that given the parents' background the spin about RC negligence and the threatened lawsuit are more about establishing a narrative to protect Grandpa against criminal liability than about money grubbing. They may have been hoping that by adamantly standing behind him, insisting on the story that he didn't know the window was open, they are building the narrative for the criminal defense. Perhaps they were hoping to influence against the filing of charges or creating enough doubt in potential jurors. And, they were hoping that if RC accepted some blame in any form, it would help protect Grandpa from criminal conviction.

They haven't filed anything yet because they're not seeking quick bucks. They (1) were hoping to avoid criminal charges and waiting to see if they were brought; (2) know that if he's found guilty, there's no point to a lawsuit; and (3) know that if he's exonerated any lawsuit's prospects are much better.

Agreed. This is a terribly sad and tragic situation for that entire family.

Given the family's behavior in this makes me less sympathy for them. If anything, I think this was sad and tragic for the OTHER passengers who had to witness this and had their vacations ruined. This is sad and tragic for the crew members of the ship. This is sad and tragic for the brother, who as a child has no control over the family's actions. But the parents and grandparents? Not so much.

Easy to say that from where you sit. You have NO IDEA how you'd react in some sort of similar tragedy. None.
You also are severely lacking in compassion.

I genuinely detest the litigious nature of society, as a whole. This seems like an accident, period. And while tragic, I don't see where anything civil (or criminal) will provide redress for what happened-nor should it. Having said that, I still feel compassion for this family that LOST THEIR CHILD. You're a disgusting person.

Your comment is very ironic, considering the first thing this family did was basically form a press junket and loudly proclaim they were going to sue RCI. I have a lot of empathy and compassion for families who have just lost a child, but those seeking financial reward start to lose some of that leeway with me. They seem to think that dollars will make it all better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the latest take on it I've seen:

Winkleman said to NBC News Tuesday that the family has no reason to doubt Anello's story and would like to see surveillance footage from the incident.

"We know what Sam's version of the events were, and I have no reason to doubt what he said," Winkleman said. "Having said that, a picture is worth a thousand words and a video is worth 10,000 words."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/family-of-toddler-who-fell-from-cruise-ship-utterly-crushed-after-grandfather-charged/ar-AAJyyOp?ocid=spartandhp

Yes. Yes, counselor, it is.

He continues to frame this as grandpa’s version of events. He’s choosing his words carefully.

Precisely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawyer's not willing to file suit until he sees the tape and makes sure grandpa isn't lying.

PP here (who keep identifying as PP) - this is what I am hung up on. Why on earth would the family and the lawyer go on television and announce that they plan to file suit without having seen the tape?

At that point, there was no confirmation that there was a tape, right? But then there was, and now they seem to be backtracking.

Okay, I was given the impression by Lester what's his name on the news tonight that the charges were made against the grandfather because of the tape.

They were hoping for a quick buck and were banking on RC settling with them to avoid bad publicity. I doubt they thought that so many in the public would be against them, nor did they think Grandpa would be charged. I’d be surprised if RC didn’t initially offer them money. Probably wasn’t what they hoped for.

This is where I am with this - the ambulance chaser thought they would get a settlement, found out RC has a tape, the narrative was changed, still no settlement - so RC is holding out for the family to back down?

How could they not know there are cameras everywhere on a cruise ship?

You and I would, but not everyone would know - not sure why - some people just don't take that into consideration.

Dad’s a cop. No way he wouldn’t think cameras were around. Not sure what type of lawyer mom is so she might not have immediately thought that. But I would bet $100 their lawyer told them about cameras in the first 15 minutes of their conversation.

Missed the part about dad being a cop and mom being a lawyer. Just reading this thread.

[Anonymous]

I’ve followed this closely from the very beginning and don’t recall RCI ever offering to show them the tape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, I wasn't aware that the mom was an attorney although I did know that the dad was a cop. I guess professionally they knew that Grandpa could be in big trouble and were trying to get the cruise ship to accept blame for the incident. It's probably been more a matter of mitigating any further damage to their family (court costs for Grandpa along with him possibly going to jail). Plus, they probably *needed* to believe that the cruise ship was responsible for this nightmare. Believing that Grandpa was responsible was too much for all of them...

I agree that given the parents' background the spin about RC negligence and the threatened lawsuit are more about establishing a narrative to protect Grandpa against criminal liability than about money grubbing. They may have been hoping that by adamantly standing behind him, insisting on the story that he didn't know the window was open, they are building the narrative for the criminal defense. Perhaps they were hoping to influence against the filing of charges or creating enough doubt in potential jurors. And, they were hoping that if RC accepted some blame in any form, it would help protect Grandpa from criminal conviction.

They haven't filed anything yet because they're not seeking quick bucks. They (1) were hoping to avoid criminal charges and waiting to see if they were brought; (2) know that if he's found guilty, there's no point to a lawsuit; and (3) know that if he's exonerated any lawsuit's prospects are much better.

Agreed. This is a terribly sad and tragic situation for that entire family.

Given the family's behavior in this makes me less sympathy for them. If anything, I think this was sad and tragic for the OTHER passengers who had to witness this and had their vacations ruined. This is sad and tragic for the crew members of the ship. This is sad and tragic for the brother, who as a child has no control over the family's actions. But the parents and grandparents? Not so much.

Easy to say that from where you sit. You have NO IDEA how you'd react in some sort of similar tragedy. None.
You also are severely lacking in compassion.

I genuinely detest the litigious nature of society, as a whole. This seems like an accident, period. And while tragic, I don't see where anything civil (or criminal) will provide redress for what happened-nor should it. Having said that, I still feel compassion for this family that LOST THEIR CHILD. You're a disgusting person.

Wow. Personal attack from a person that's totally cool with throwing babies out the window.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawyer's not willing to file suit until he sees the tape and makes sure grandpa isn't lying.

PP here (who keep identifying as PP) - this is what I am hung up on. Why on earth would the family and the lawyer go on television and announce that they plan to file suit without having seen the tape?

At that point, there was no confirmation that there was a tape, right? But then there was, and now they seem to be backtracking.

Okay, I was given the impression by Lester what's his name on the news tonight that the charges were made against the grandfather because of the tape.

They were hoping for a quick buck and were banking on RC settling with them to avoid bad publicity. I doubt they thought that so many in the public would be against them, nor did they think Grandpa would be charged. I’d be surprised if RC didn’t initially offer them money. Probably wasn’t what they hoped for.

This is where I am with this - the ambulance chaser thought they would get a settlement, found out RC has a tape, the narrative was changed, still no settlement - so RC is holding out for the family to back down?

How could they not know there are cameras everywhere on a cruise ship?

You and I would, but not everyone would know - not sure why - some people just don't take that into consideration.

Dad’s a cop. No way he wouldn’t think cameras were around. Not sure what type of lawyer mom is so she might not have immediately thought that. But I would bet $100 their lawyer told them about cameras in the first 15 minutes of their conversation.

Missed the part about dad being a cop and mom being a lawyer. Just reading this thread.

PP here. Mom being a lawyer and dad being a cop, maybe that is why they snapped into action with the press immediately. Maybe they felt guilty, and thought (somehow, they might not have been thinking clearly) that press coverage about "how great the grandfather is" would make it somehow better? That is nuts. Going to the press should have been the LAST thing on their mind.

[Anonymous]

You can rant and scream about how unfair and horrible it is to lose your child without inaccurately accusing anyone of negligence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can rant and scream about how unfair and horrible it is to lose your child without inaccurately accusing anyone of negligence.

This. And I certainly wouldn’t be giving any interviews ffs. If any press called me I’d have a friend tell them to GTFOH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, I wasn't aware that the mom was an attorney although I did know that the dad was a cop. I guess professionally they knew that Grandpa could be in big trouble and were trying to get the cruise ship to accept blame for the incident. It's probably been more a matter of mitigating any further damage to their family (court costs for Grandpa along with him possibly going to jail). Plus, they probably *needed* to believe that the cruise ship was responsible for this nightmare. Believing that Grandpa was responsible was too much for all of them...

I agree that given the parents' background the spin about RC negligence and the threatened lawsuit are more about establishing a narrative to protect Grandpa against criminal liability than about money grubbing. They may have been hoping that by adamantly standing behind him, insisting on the story that he didn't know the window was open, they are building the narrative for the criminal defense. Perhaps they were hoping to influence against the filing of charges or creating enough doubt in potential jurors. And, they were hoping that if RC accepted some blame in any form, it would help protect Grandpa from criminal conviction.

They haven't filed anything yet because they're not seeking quick bucks. They (1) were hoping to avoid criminal charges and waiting to see if they were brought; (2) know that if he's found guilty, there's no point to a lawsuit; and (3) know that if he's exonerated any lawsuit's prospects are much better.

Agreed. This is a terribly sad and tragic situation for that entire family.

Given the family's behavior in this makes me less sympathy for them. If anything, I think this was sad and tragic for the OTHER passengers who had to witness this and had their vacations ruined. This is sad and tragic for the crew members of the ship. This is sad and tragic for the brother, who as a child has no control over the family's actions. But the parents and grandparents? Not so much.

Easy to say that from where you sit. You have NO IDEA how you'd react in some sort of similar tragedy. None.
You also are severely lacking in compassion.

I genuinely detest the litigious nature of society, as a whole. This seems like an accident, period. And while tragic, I don't see where anything civil (or criminal) will provide redress for what happened-nor should it. Having said that, I still feel compassion for this family that LOST THEIR CHILD. You're a disgusting person.

Your comment is very ironic, considering the first thing this family did was basically form a press junket and loudly proclaim they were going to sue RCI. I have a lot of empathy and compassion for families who have just lost a child, but those seeking financial reward start to lose some of that leeway with me. They seem to think that dollars will make it all better.

I don't think you understand irony.

And I'll say again, you have no idea what you do in the fog of extreme grief. None. There are plenty of folks who act irrationally in that state. Or try to place blame. Etc. etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, I wasn't aware that the mom was an attorney although I did know that the dad was a cop. I guess professionally they knew that Grandpa could be in big trouble and were trying to get the cruise ship to accept blame for the incident. It's probably been more a matter of mitigating any further damage to their family (court costs for Grandpa along with him possibly going to jail). Plus, they probably *needed* to believe that the cruise ship was responsible for this nightmare. Believing that Grandpa was responsible was too much for all of them...

I agree that given the parents' background the spin about RC negligence and the threatened lawsuit are more about establishing a narrative to protect Grandpa against criminal liability than about money grubbing. They may have been hoping that by adamantly standing behind him, insisting on the story that he didn't know the window was open, they are building the narrative for the criminal defense. Perhaps they were hoping to influence against the filing of charges or creating enough doubt in potential jurors. And, they were hoping that if RC accepted some blame in any form, it would help protect Grandpa from criminal conviction.

They haven't filed anything yet because they're not seeking quick bucks. They (1) were hoping to avoid criminal charges and waiting to see if they were brought; (2) know that if he's found guilty, there's no point to a lawsuit; and (3) know that if he's exonerated any lawsuit's prospects are much better.

Agreed. This is a terribly sad and tragic situation for that entire family.

Given the family's behavior in this makes me less sympathy for them. If anything, I think this was sad and tragic for the OTHER passengers who had to witness this and had their vacations ruined. This is sad and tragic for the crew members of the ship. This is sad and tragic for the brother, who as a child has no control over the family's actions. But the parents and grandparents? Not so much.

Easy to say that from where you sit. You have NO IDEA how you'd react in some sort of similar tragedy. None.
You also are severely lacking in compassion.

I genuinely detest the litigious nature of society, as a whole. This seems like an accident, period. And while tragic, I don't see where anything civil (or criminal) will provide redress for what happened-nor should it. Having said that, I still feel compassion for this family that LOST THEIR CHILD. You're a disgusting person.

Wow. Personal attack from a person that's totally cool with throwing babies out the window.

You got me. Yes - throw all the babies out windows.

Pig.

[Anonymous]

Not to rush to the end of the book.

The grandpa will not be found to be negligent.

The cruise ship will be found negligent for having unsecured windows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, I wasn't aware that the mom was an attorney although I did know that the dad was a cop. I guess professionally they knew that Grandpa could be in big trouble and were trying to get the cruise ship to accept blame for the incident. It's probably been more a matter of mitigating any further damage to their family (court costs for Grandpa along with him possibly going to jail). Plus, they probably *needed* to believe that the cruise ship was responsible for this nightmare. Believing that Grandpa was responsible was too much for all of them...

I agree that given the parents' background the spin about RC negligence and the threatened lawsuit are more about establishing a narrative to protect Grandpa against criminal liability than about money grubbing. They may have been hoping that by adamantly standing behind him, insisting on the story that he didn't know the window was open, they are building the narrative for the criminal defense. Perhaps they were hoping to influence against the filing of charges or creating enough doubt in potential jurors. And, they were hoping that if RC accepted some blame in any form, it would help protect Grandpa from criminal conviction.

They haven't filed anything yet because they're not seeking quick bucks. They (1) were hoping to avoid criminal charges and waiting to see if they were brought; (2) know that if he's found guilty, there's no point to a lawsuit; and (3) know that if he's exonerated any lawsuit's prospects are much better.

Agreed. This is a terribly sad and tragic situation for that entire family.

Given the family's behavior in this makes me less sympathy for them. If anything, I think this was sad and tragic for the OTHER passengers who had to witness this and had their vacations ruined. This is sad and tragic for the crew members of the ship. This is sad and tragic for the brother, who as a child has no control over the family's actions. But the parents and grandparents? Not so much.

Easy to say that from where you sit. You have NO IDEA how you'd react in some sort of similar tragedy. None.
You also are severely lacking in compassion.

I genuinely detest the litigious nature of society, as a whole. This seems like an accident, period. And while tragic, I don't see where anything civil (or criminal) will provide redress for what happened-nor should it. Having said that, I still feel compassion for this family that LOST THEIR CHILD. You're a disgusting person.

Your comment is very ironic, considering the first thing this family did was basically form a press junket and loudly proclaim they were going to sue RCI. I have a lot of empathy and compassion for families who have just lost a child, but those seeking financial reward start to lose some of that leeway with me. They seem to think that dollars will make it all better.

I don't think you understand irony.

And I'll say again, you have no idea what you do in the fog of extreme grief. None. There are plenty of folks who act irrationally in that state. Or try to place blame. Etc. etc.

Yes, people do a lot of things they shouldn't.

Are you saying there are no lines, or that this line is drawn in the wrong place? Would you say it would be okay for a grieving family to, say, accuse a minor child from another family of deliberating murdering their child, and hound a twelve year old in the media, leaking the name and so forth? Or could they be criticized if they crossed THAT line?

People react badly sometimes. That doesn't mean you have to confront them directly, but you can comment that the reaction was a bad one, or out of proportion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not to rush to the end of the book.

The grandpa will not be found to be negligent.

The cruise ship will be found negligent for having unsecured windows.

Place a bet on that, PP. Use your retirement savings. It's a sure thing!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not to rush to the end of the book.

The grandpa will not be found to be negligent.

The cruise ship will be found negligent for having unsecured windows.

No, neither will be found to be negligent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not to rush to the end of the book.

The grandpa will not be found to be negligent.

The cruise ship will be found negligent for having unsecured windows.

There are also interior railings overlooking big drops. I didn't see any signs cautioning you against using them as a balance beam.