Grandpa from Cruise ship tragedy charged

[Anonymous]

He absolutely chose an open window (for the pretty or view or nice breeze, whatever). What makes it conclusively deliberate (and beyond stupid) is how high the gold hand rail is. He needed hoist her chest high to get her so she could stand on the railing. And who stands a toddler on a round hand rail (verses a flat ledge or similar)? No one. Grandpa lost his damn head. But I have some room to believe that the family is so rocked with grief that the cannot fathom that grandpa murdered their baby. So, wow, that lawyer earns tons of blame and Grandpa is going to jail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate to say this, but has anyone considered that it may not have been an accident or negligence?

That’s what a recent news report said the prosecution eluded to, but they don’t have the evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate to say this, but has anyone considered that it may not have been an accident or negligence?

I have. I think it was more of those weird fleeting thoughts like if I let go of her right ow she would fall and then he acted on it before he could stop himself. I don’t think he is mentally ill. It was just a random irrational thought that turned into action. I also think if the family had let it go as an accident and didn’t file suit against the cruise line that their would have been no further investigation and the grandpa would not be in jail. But he is and maybe this is the only justice that the family will get. I totally believe the mom and dad blame him as they should.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate to say this, but has anyone considered that it may not have been an accident or negligence?

I have. I think it was more of those weird fleeting thoughts like if I let go of her right ow she would fall and then he acted on it before he could stop himself. I don’t think he is mentally ill. It was just a random irrational thought that turned into action. I also think if the family had let it go as an accident and didn’t file suit against the cruise line that their would have been no further investigation and the grandpa would not be in jail. But he is and maybe this is the only justice that the family will get. I totally believe the mom and dad blame him as they should.

I think this is as good a take as any on this tragedy.

I do believe that Grandpa intentionally and knowingly put that baby into an open window. This goes beyond a mere accident. I think the charge of negligent homicide is appropriate and I don't know that the police would have just allowed him to walk away from this if the family hadn't gone after the cruise line. I think he's being prosecuted because he committed a crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He absolutely chose an open window (for the pretty view or nice breeze, whatever). What makes it conclusively deliberate (and beyond stupid) is how high the gold hand rail is. He needed hoist her chest high to get her so she could stand on the railing. And who stands a toddler on a round hand rail (verses a flat ledge or similar)? No one. Grandpa lost his damn head. But I have some room to believe that the family is so rocked with grief that the cannot fathom that grandpa murdered their baby. So, wow, that lawyer earns tons of blame and Grandpa is going to jail.

His acts were intentional. This was no accident. She died as a direct result of his egregious acts. Whether he intended her to die or not doesn’t matter at that point.

[Anonymous]

Do you have to prove intent? I agree w PP that GFa acted on a fleeting impulse. Guessing he may also lack intelligence. As another PP mentioned he could have diminished functioning due to a yet undiagnosed dementia...maybe this will be his defense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you have to prove intent? I agree w PP that GFa acted on a fleeting impulse. Guessing he may also lack intelligence. As another PP mentioned he could have diminished functioning due to a yet undiagnosed dementia...maybe this will be his defense?

Depend on the elements of the crime he’s charged with.
But usually for negligent homicide, the acts of hoisting the girl in way that led to her death is sufficient proof.
He’s not being charged with murder 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He absolutely chose an open window (for the pretty view or nice breeze, whatever). What makes it conclusively deliberate (and beyond stupid) is how high the gold hand rail is. He needed hoist her chest high to get her so she could stand on the railing. And who stands a toddler on a round hand rail (verses a flat ledge or similar)? No one. Grandpa lost his damn head. But I have some room to believe that the family is so rocked with grief that the cannot fathom that grandpa murdered their baby. So, wow, that lawyer earns tons of blame and Grandpa is going to jail.

His acts were intentional. This was no accident. She died as a direct result of his egregious acts. Whether he intended her to die or not doesn’t matter at that point.

Prosecution does not need to prove that he intended for her to fall to her death.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you have to prove intent? I agree w PP that GFa acted on a fleeting impulse. Guessing he may also lack intelligence. As another PP mentioned he could have diminished functioning due to a yet undiagnosed dementia...maybe this will be his defense?

He's not that old. I was surprised to see him on TV. I was imagining an doddering old man too but ... no.

[Anonymous]

He’s 51! Same age as Will Smith, Marc Anthony, Hugh Jackman, Owen Wilson, Matthew McConaughey, Jason Bateman, Jason Priestly and millions of able bodied people we don’t know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate to say this, but has anyone considered that it may not have been an accident or negligence?

That’s what a recent news report said the prosecution eluded to, but they don’t have the evidence.

Did the toddler have any health issues? I think I heard she was premature and the parents described her as a fighter.

[Anonymous]

And before it starts again, yes, he should be charged. It doesn't matter if these were unintended consequences. If society does not deter negligence, other negligent behaviors would become acceptable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate to say this, but has anyone considered that it may not have been an accident or negligence?

That’s what a recent news report said the prosecution eluded to, but they don’t have the evidence.

Did the toddler have any health issues? I think I heard she was premature and the parents described her as a fighter.

Is there a health issue that is relevant here? She seemed to be doing fine before being defenestration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It was an accident. He should not be charged.

Negligent homicide means exactly that. He was negligent. Perhaps the judge was also pissed off that the family sued the ship and knows something we don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate to say this, but has anyone considered that it may not have been an accident or negligence?

That’s what a recent news report said the prosecution eluded to, but they don’t have the evidence.

Did the toddler have any health issues? I think I heard she was premature and the parents described her as a fighter.

Is there a health issue that is relevant here? She seemed to be doing fine before being defenestration.

If she had health issues the grandpa could have thought he was doing some sort of mercy for her. I have no idea, just speculation. It’s hard to come up with any rationale for any of this.