The lawsuit against Royal Caribbean/toddler death

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember the lawyer had the media repeating that this happened in a children’s PLAY AREA. The lawyer is a lying dirt bag and should be disbarred. That news agencies blindly repeated the lawyer’s claims as fact is despicable.

To be fair, this is the walk area that goes around the pool deck which includes a children's play area. However, where they were, the walkway opens wider for an open space around the bar. They walked away from the pool area passed the bar over to the walkway and window. So, it may be that the grandfather is the one that pushed the children's play area, because they were there before they walked over to the window. But it was a significant distance away from the play area. There's no guarantee that this is just the lawyer pushing that it was a play area. This could have been the grandfather's own words.

If they were a significant distance away, then there is no need to "be fair", is there? This is an entitlement attitude, whether it originally came from the lawyer or grandpa.
LOL at all the posters using this thread to get in their little jabs at IT people. Still bitter about getting blocked from pinterest at work?

The area it happened, as you can clearly see on the videos, is a bar. Literally a bar. Not a children’s area.

And throughout the video I didn’t see a single other child. Not one.
The escalators are near the play area at Tysons mall, so maybe that’s a play area too?

There’s no play area on that ship. There are pools on that deck, and there is a walkway between the pools, bars, etc. and a seating area with tables and chairs near the windows.

I was on that ship the week before the accident (got off that ship that morning), and we looked out those windows many times.

Again: no children’s play area on that ship.

I’m irrationally annoyed at the sheeple who insist “to be fair” and then defend the dirty rotten lying —insert lawyer or grandpa or combination of both. They’re liars. It’s not a play area. They said it was. And then the media repeated it as if it were a fact!
It’s not a child’s play area.

And even if it were, she didn’t trip and fall out the window. She was lifted and dropped. Big difference.

I'm the "to be fair" PP. I am fully blaming the grandfather, mother and father for negligence and this entire horrifically distasteful lawsuit. It is disgusting to be trying to profit off of your child's death, especially when it was caused by your family's negligence.

My comment was for those people who are trying to blame the ambulance chaser for this senseless BS. The former prosecutor, the current LEO and the negligent grandfather are smart enough and experienced enough to know exactly what they are doing here. They found a lawyer who would do what they wanted. I disbelieve the narrative that there was an ambulance chaser who jumped at them and forced this story and case on them and is leading them like sheep in this lawsuit.

Most of us agree with you. The issue is that the family can at least hide behind an emotional, "we are grief stricken and have no idea what we are/were doing". The lawyer, OTOH, is supposed to be a professional who operates within a code of ethics.

I know that most lawyers are scummy, but aren't people like defense lawyers supposed to say to their clients, "if you did it, I don't want you to tell me, because then I can't argue a lie in court"? I just find it so unbelievably disgusting that this lawyer has seen VIDEO of the incident and has probably been on the exact ship to check it out and he's still peddling these 100% lies. It's like a criminal defense lawyer seeing full footage of a murder and then arguing in court that it didn't happen. It's absolutely and undeniably unethical, at best, probably criminal (perjury is a crime for everyone else and it should be for lawyers too!), and should be cause for disbarment.

That is exactly what a lawyer is supposed to do. They have to mount a vigorous defense in support of their client. To not do that is what could subject them to disbarment. And yes, defense attorneys frequently know their clients committed the crime. But that’s not ultimately what they are arguing against, they are fighting to prove the government cannot prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that their client committed the crime.

Attorneys are also not asked in court as to whether or not their client is guilty or if their client committed the crime. What you believe is “undeniably unethical, at best probably criminal” is not at all how the judicial system works. They are not committing ethics violations nor are they committing perjury by providing a defense for the client. The only way they’d be committing an ethics violation or committing perjury would be if they’ve been told their client is guilty and they are asked if their client is guilty and the lawyer says no. But again, that isn’t how our justice system works. The defense attorney isn’t the one on trial and doesn’t testify.

This article does a good job of explaining what defense attorneys do: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/representing-client-whom-the-lawyer-thinks-is-guilty.html

This is not a defense lawyer it’s a plaintiff lawyer. And there’s something called rule 11 that requires that requires that pleadings have merit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember the lawyer had the media repeating that this happened in a children’s PLAY AREA. The lawyer is a lying dirt bag and should be disbarred. That news agencies blindly repeated the lawyer’s claims as fact is despicable.

To be fair, this is the walk area that goes around the pool deck which includes a children's play area. However, where they were, the walkway opens wider for an open space around the bar. They walked away from the pool area passed the bar over to the walkway and window. So, it may be that the grandfather is the one that pushed the children's play area, because they were there before they walked over to the window. But it was a significant distance away from the play area. There's no guarantee that this is just the lawyer pushing that it was a play area. This could have been the grandfather's own words.

If they were a significant distance away, then there is no need to "be fair", is there? This is an entitlement attitude, whether it originally came from the lawyer or grandpa.
LOL at all the posters using this thread to get in their little jabs at IT people. Still bitter about getting blocked from pinterest at work?

The area it happened, as you can clearly see on the videos, is a bar. Literally a bar. Not a children’s area.

And throughout the video I didn’t see a single other child. Not one.
The escalators are near the play area at Tysons mall, so maybe that’s a play area too?

There’s no play area on that ship. There are pools on that deck, and there is a walkway between the pools, bars, etc. and a seating area with tables and chairs near the windows.

I was on that ship the week before the accident (got off that ship that morning), and we looked out those windows many times.

Again: no children’s play area on that ship.

I’m irrationally annoyed at the sheeple who insist “to be fair” and then defend the dirty rotten lying —insert lawyer or grandpa or combination of both. They’re liars. It’s not a play area. They said it was. And then the media repeated it as if it were a fact!
It’s not a child’s play area.

On that area of the deck there aren't sharply defined areas. I wouldn't call it a bar but I wouldn't call it a children's play area. It's a general recreation area.

There is an actual children's play area with specific staff to entertain children. It's called adventure ocean.

The staffed play area is indoors.

[Anonymous]

I can see in the video how Chloe runs over to the bar area where people are drinking and milling around with Grandpa following a good distance away from her. She had definitely entered an area meant for adults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who sends a 1 year old dressed in a bathing suit to play in a pool area with a fully dressed grandfather?

Had Chloe been going into the water alone? What on earth?

RCI has life guards. They are certainly more capable swimmers unless Gramps is a former Olympic hopeful.

You do not put your 1 year old in a pool by herself with the expectation that the lifeguards will rescue her as needed. Maybe that really was Grandpa's mentality, who knows. Maybe he thought that some magical person on the ground was going to catch Chloe when he dropped her.

Ugh, this whole thing was just so senseless and completely careless. Poor little baby, I just want to reach into that video and grab her .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The grandfather is in IT. I notice two types in the field: either they are extremely bright (very rare, contrary to how important DCUMers think they are) and have little or no common sense - or (and this is FAR more common) they just aren't that bright, period - but got into the field because they thought it was the trendy thing to do.

+1

A lot of these types are good with machines and awfully incompetent with anything living. Ask the wives of DCUM.

+1

It should tell you, from the high percentage of those who lack people skills here, that they do exist, and are plentiful.

Anello made it to the age of 51. He must have had some idea that falling 11 stories onto concrete would not be a smart thing to do. Same with sticking your head in a 400 degree oven or cutting your leg off with a chain saw.

Again, luck.

Uh, no. The dude isn't a doddering, blithering idiot. He's a reasonably smart, functional guy who used exceedingly poor judgement and cost an innocent baby her life.

I know doddering, blithering idiot moms in their 90’s who birthed and barely raised 5 or 6 kids by sheer luck, but yes, I get your point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The grandfather is in IT. I notice two types in the field: either they are extremely bright (very rare, contrary to how important DCUMers think they are) and have little or no common sense - or (and this is FAR more common) they just aren't that bright, period - but got into the field because they thought it was the trendy thing to do.

+1

A lot of these types are good with machines and awfully incompetent with anything living. Ask the wives of DCUM.

+1

It should tell you, from the high percentage of those who lack people skills here, that they do exist, and are plentiful.

Anello made it to the age of 51. He must have had some idea that falling 11 stories onto concrete would not be a smart thing to do. Same with sticking your head in a 400 degree oven or cutting your leg off with a chain saw.

Again, luck.

Uh, no. The dude isn't a doddering, blithering idiot. He's a reasonably smart, functional guy who used exceedingly poor judgement and cost an innocent baby her life.

I know doddering, blithering idiot moms in their 90’s who birthed and barely raised 5 or 6 kids by sheer luck, but yes, I get your point.

Yep. Birthing them is a lot easier than actually caring for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can see in the video how Chloe runs over to the bar area where people are drinking and milling around with Grandpa following a good distance away from her. She had definitely entered an area meant for adults.

There are a few specific areas that are adults only. This isn't one of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can see in the video how Chloe runs over to the bar area where people are drinking and milling around with Grandpa following a good distance away from her. She had definitely entered an area meant for adults.

There are a few specific areas that are adults only. This isn't one of them.

True, but it shows that he didn’t have great control over her, and that it wasn’t a “children’s play area.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can see in the video how Chloe runs over to the bar area where people are drinking and milling around with Grandpa following a good distance away from her. She had definitely entered an area meant for adults.

There are a few specific areas that are adults only. This isn't one of them.

True, but it shows that he didn’t have great control over her, and that it wasn’t a “children’s play area.”

The only people drinking and milling about at that bar were adults. Chloe was the only child over there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can see in the video how Chloe runs over to the bar area where people are drinking and milling around with Grandpa following a good distance away from her. She had definitely entered an area meant for adults.

There are a few specific areas that are adults only. This isn't one of them.

True, but it shows that he didn’t have great control over her, and that it wasn’t a “children’s play area.”

The only people drinking and milling about at that bar were adults. Chloe was the only child over there.

Where the parents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can see in the video how Chloe runs over to the bar area where people are drinking and milling around with Grandpa following a good distance away from her. She had definitely entered an area meant for adults.

There are a few specific areas that are adults only. This isn't one of them.

True, but it shows that he didn’t have great control over her, and that it wasn’t a “children’s play area.”

The only people drinking and milling about at that bar were adults. Chloe was the only child over there.

Where the parents?

It was mentioned up thread that they were finishing up a meal in a nearby cafe. I haven't seen that reported anywhere but it seems plausible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember the lawyer had the media repeating that this happened in a children’s PLAY AREA. The lawyer is a lying dirt bag and should be disbarred. That news agencies blindly repeated the lawyer’s claims as fact is despicable.

To be fair, this is the walk area that goes around the pool deck which includes a children's play area. However, where they were, the walkway opens wider for an open space around the bar. They walked away from the pool area passed the bar over to the walkway and window. So, it may be that the grandfather is the one that pushed the children's play area, because they were there before they walked over to the window. But it was a significant distance away from the play area. There's no guarantee that this is just the lawyer pushing that it was a play area. This could have been the grandfather's own words.

If they were a significant distance away, then there is no need to "be fair", is there? This is an entitlement attitude, whether it originally came from the lawyer or grandpa.
LOL at all the posters using this thread to get in their little jabs at IT people. Still bitter about getting blocked from pinterest at work?

The area it happened, as you can clearly see on the videos, is a bar. Literally a bar. Not a children’s area.

And throughout the video I didn’t see a single other child. Not one.
The escalators are near the play area at Tysons mall, so maybe that’s a play area too?

There’s no play area on that ship. There are pools on that deck, and there is a walkway between the pools, bars, etc. and a seating area with tables and chairs near the windows.

I was on that ship the week before the accident (got off that ship that morning), and we looked out those windows many times.

Again: no children’s play area on that ship.

I’m irrationally annoyed at the sheeple who insist “to be fair” and then defend the dirty rotten lying —insert lawyer or grandpa or combination of both. They’re liars. It’s not a play area. They said it was. And then the media repeated it as if it were a fact!
It’s not a child’s play area.

And even if it were, she didn’t trip and fall out the window. She was lifted and dropped. Big difference.

I'm the "to be fair" PP. I am fully blaming the grandfather, mother and father for negligence and this entire horrifically distasteful lawsuit. It is disgusting to be trying to profit off of your child's death, especially when it was caused by your family's negligence.

My comment was for those people who are trying to blame the ambulance chaser for this senseless BS. The former prosecutor, the current LEO and the negligent grandfather are smart enough and experienced enough to know exactly what they are doing here. They found a lawyer who would do what they wanted. I disbelieve the narrative that there was an ambulance chaser who jumped at them and forced this story and case on them and is leading them like sheep in this lawsuit.

Most of us agree with you. The issue is that the family can at least hide behind an emotional, "we are grief stricken and have no idea what we are/were doing". The lawyer, OTOH, is supposed to be a professional who operates within a code of ethics.

I know that most lawyers are scummy, but aren't people like defense lawyers supposed to say to their clients, "if you did it, I don't want you to tell me, because then I can't argue a lie in court"? I just find it so unbelievably disgusting that this lawyer has seen VIDEO of the incident and has probably been on the exact ship to check it out and he's still peddling these 100% lies. It's like a criminal defense lawyer seeing full footage of a murder and then arguing in court that it didn't happen. It's absolutely and undeniably unethical, at best, probably criminal (perjury is a crime for everyone else and it should be for lawyers too!), and should be cause for disbarment.

That is exactly what a lawyer is supposed to do. They have to mount a vigorous defense in support of their client. To not do that is what could subject them to disbarment. And yes, defense attorneys frequently know their clients committed the crime. But that’s not ultimately what they are arguing against, they are fighting to prove the government cannot prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that their client committed the crime.

Attorneys are also not asked in court as to whether or not their client is guilty or if their client committed the crime. What you believe is “undeniably unethical, at best probably criminal” is not at all how the judicial system works. They are not committing ethics violations nor are they committing perjury by providing a defense for the client. The only way they’d be committing an ethics violation or committing perjury would be if they’ve been told their client is guilty and they are asked if their client is guilty and the lawyer says no. But again, that isn’t how our justice system works. The defense attorney isn’t the one on trial and doesn’t testify.

This article does a good job of explaining what defense attorneys do: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/representing-client-whom-the-lawyer-thinks-is-guilty.html

This is not a defense lawyer it’s a plaintiff lawyer. And there’s something called rule 11 that requires that requires that pleadings have merit.

It doesn’t matter if the lawyer is a defense attorney or a plaintiff’s attorney. No matter what the armchair attorneys on DCUM want to post, the lawyer is doing exactly what lawyers do. He’s not being unethical nor committing perjury. His job is to make the case that RC is somehow at fault. Gramps is 100% guilty of being negligent and he should be convicted. But every so often what seems to be an open and shut case brings us a Jose Biaz lawyer that gets lucky when he pulls a stupid jury.

As for rule 11, as you know, it’s a low bar. If that wasn’t such a minor speed bump in our judicial system, we’d have A LOT less court cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who sends a 1 year old dressed in a bathing suit to play in a pool area with a fully dressed grandfather?

Had Chloe been going into the water alone? What on earth?

RCI has life guards. They are certainly more capable swimmers unless Gramps is a former Olympic hopeful.

It was a splash pad. Under 3 and not potty trained aren’t allowed in pools because swim diapers are not allowed. She wasn’t swimming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who sends a 1 year old dressed in a bathing suit to play in a pool area with a fully dressed grandfather?

Had Chloe been going into the water alone? What on earth?

RCI has life guards. They are certainly more capable swimmers unless Gramps is a former Olympic hopeful.

It was a splash pad. Under 3 and not potty trained aren’t allowed in pools because swim diapers are not allowed. She wasn’t swimming.

O.k. that makes a lot more sense if he had taken her to play at a splash pad as opposed to an actual pool. She must have gotten bored and toddled off with Grandpa following behind her.

[Anonymous]

Grandpa already didn't have control over the her. The video shows him just trying to keep up with her as she did whatever she wanted. Their confession that they often let her bang on glass paints that picture even more clearly. He was already way out of his depth and then put her into a situation where even those of us who HAVE control over our kids would not have control any longer.