Toddler death on a cruise ship. So tragic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'all. He picked that window because it was open. Think about it - they were 11 stories up. Would her view really be any different if she were standing on the floor? No, it would not. Also - think about where her body had to be for her to flip/fall out of the window.

Or he wanted her to look out one of the clear panes thinking they were different colors.

Which would make him mentally handicapped.

No one thinks 'oh there's one window they painted a different color!'

He knew it was open.

If some of them were open and some closed, and when closed they are “very tinted” as some posts on here have said, he could have looked at the wall of windows and thought they were all closed just some were tinted and others not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'all. He picked that window because it was open. Think about it - they were 11 stories up. Would her view really be any different if she were standing on the floor? No, it would not. Also - think about where her body had to be for her to flip/fall out of the window.

Or he wanted her to look out one of the clear panes thinking they were different colors.

Which would make him mentally handicapped.

No one thinks 'oh there's one window they painted a different color!'

He knew it was open.

If some of them were open and some closed, and when closed they are “very tinted” as some posts on here have said, he could have looked at the wall of windows and thought they were all closed just some were tinted and others not.

wtf that makes zero logical sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'all. He picked that window because it was open. Think about it - they were 11 stories up. Would her view really be any different if she were standing on the floor? No, it would not. Also - think about where her body had to be for her to flip/fall out of the window.

Or he wanted her to look out one of the clear panes thinking they were different colors.

Which would make him mentally handicapped.

No one thinks 'oh there's one window they painted a different color!'

He knew it was open.

If some of them were open and some closed, and when closed they are “very tinted” as some posts on here have said, he could have looked at the wall of windows and thought they were all closed just some were tinted and others not.

Just stop. Grandpa knew. Of course the family will never admit because a lawsuit is involved and money is more important than what is right. The girl splatted on the ground because of her grandfathers poor choice.

[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:Is the cruise line likely to settle just to avoid bad press?

Of course payday for the family is small consolation to losing a kid though.

It will be nothing like the Disney settlement (also not at fault) which is estimated at $8-10M.

Disagree on Disney not being at fault. A parent/child/person have an expectation of safety in a man-made, beachy, water area at a resort. It wasn't an open ocean -- which can't be controlled. You don't expect to be eaten by an alligator at a Disney hotel beach.

This is completely different. The grandpa created the danger and failed to protect the child.

No. Disney had signs up saying not to swim in the lake. But this family thought it would be cute to argue semantics and say "we weren't swimming, we were WADING."

That wasn’t semantics. The kid wasn’t swimming and I don’t even know that he was wading. The gator basically grabbed him. The question is whether a reasonable person reading a “no swimming sign” would understand that to mean “if you get too close to this water, a gator may eat you.” Maybe a reasonable Floridian would understand that implication, but not a reasonable person visiting from a non-gator infested place. And Disney encouraged families to hang out on that beach. They were totally at fault—and I’m a huge Disney lover.

The kid was in the water and so was his dad. Arguing semantics doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't have been in the water, ESPECIALLY at night, at all.

Jesus give it a rest. You were chirping this the first time when this happened. Do you work for Disney?

Dude, I'm a different person that happens to agree with the 'semantics' PP. Absolving parents and guardians of guilt when they put their own kids in danger and blaming it on the 'corporations' is such a cop out. Especially when the kids die.

DP - Well obviously smarter people than you disagreed. The family was given money.

But their kid is dead.

Those of us who understand "semantics" still have live children.

Until you don’t. You don’t know what tomorrow will bring, so shove your sanctimony up your ass.

AMEN

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'all. He picked that window because it was open. Think about it - they were 11 stories up. Would her view really be any different if she were standing on the floor? No, it would not. Also - think about where her body had to be for her to flip/fall out of the window.

Or he wanted her to look out one of the clear panes thinking they were different colors.

Which would make him mentally handicapped.

No one thinks 'oh there's one window they painted a different color!'

He knew it was open.

If some of them were open and some closed, and when closed they are “very tinted” as some posts on here have said, he could have looked at the wall of windows and thought they were all closed just some were tinted and others not.

Just stop. Grandpa knew. Of course the family will never admit because a lawsuit is involved and money is more important than what is right. The girl splatted on the ground because of her grandfathers poor choice.

From the photos I've seen I can't understand why he did that. It makes no sense. The story did change after they retained the lawyer, not uncommon. I think he was going to prop her up to look out the window then fell. Kind of what M.J. did with his kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to believe that the parents are too stunned with grief to think this through. Eventually, they must come to their senses and realize the cruise line was not at fault.

I don't know -- don't those people who knowingly let their kids climb right over the "don't come any further" signs into the animal enclosures at the zoo end up suing when the kids get hurt?

They don't watch them. Just like that kid that got into the gorilla enclosure, sadly they shot the poor endangered gorilla.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know what time the accident happened? Was it dark or light outside?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'all. He picked that window because it was open. Think about it - they were 11 stories up. Would her view really be any different if she were standing on the floor? No, it would not. Also - think about where her body had to be for her to flip/fall out of the window.

Or he wanted her to look out one of the clear panes thinking they were different colors.

Which would make him mentally handicapped.

No one thinks 'oh there's one window they painted a different color!'

He knew it was open.

If some of them were open and some closed, and when closed they are “very tinted” as some posts on here have said, he could have looked at the wall of windows and thought they were all closed just some were tinted and others not.

Just stop. Grandpa knew. Of course the family will never admit because a lawsuit is involved and money is more important than what is right. The girl splatted on the ground because of her grandfathers poor choice.

From the photos I've seen I can't understand why he did that. It makes no sense. The story did change after they retained the lawyer, not uncommon. I think he was going to prop her up to look out the window then fell. Kind of what M.J. did with his kid.

I don’t think intentionally dropped her or dangled her out, but I think he did prop her in the ledge and either he slipped and fell/lost balance or she squirmed out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'all. He picked that window because it was open. Think about it - they were 11 stories up. Would her view really be any different if she were standing on the floor? No, it would not. Also - think about where her body had to be for her to flip/fall out of the window.

Or he wanted her to look out one of the clear panes thinking they were different colors.

Which would make him mentally handicapped.

No one thinks 'oh there's one window they painted a different color!'

He knew it was open.

If some of them were open and some closed, and when closed they are “very tinted” as some posts on here have said, he could have looked at the wall of windows and thought they were all closed just some were tinted and others not.

Just stop. Grandpa knew. Of course the family will never admit because a lawsuit is involved and money is more important than what is right. The girl splatted on the ground because of her grandfathers poor choice.

From the photos I've seen I can't understand why he did that. It makes no sense. The story did change after they retained the lawyer, not uncommon. I think he was going to prop her up to look out the window then fell. Kind of what M.J. did with his kid.

MJ actually dangled his kid over the railing. I don’t think Grandpa dangled this baby, just set her on the railing and lost his grip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what time the accident happened? Was it dark or light outside?

It was light. 4:30pm I believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to believe that the parents are too stunned with grief to think this through. Eventually, they must come to their senses and realize the cruise line was not at fault.

I don't know -- don't those people who knowingly let their kids climb right over the "don't come any further" signs into the animal enclosures at the zoo end up suing when the kids get hurt?

+1. Someone has to PAY for their tragedy because surely other people could have made 100% sure it wouldn’t happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'all. He picked that window because it was open. Think about it - they were 11 stories up. Would her view really be any different if she were standing on the floor? No, it would not. Also - think about where her body had to be for her to flip/fall out of the window.

Or he wanted her to look out one of the clear panes thinking they were different colors.

Which would make him mentally handicapped.

No one thinks 'oh there's one window they painted a different color!'

He knew it was open.

If some of them were open and some closed, and when closed they are “very tinted” as some posts on here have said, he could have looked at the wall of windows and thought they were all closed just some were tinted and others not.

Just stop. Grandpa knew. Of course the family will never admit because a lawsuit is involved and money is more important than what is right. The girl splatted on the ground because of her grandfathers poor choice.

I do not believe for one minute the grandfather meant any harm to his granddaughter, but no way he didn’t know the window was open. So tragic and avoidable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what time the accident happened? Was it dark or light outside?

It was light. 4:30pm I believe.

Thanks for answering. Some of the footage shown after the tragedy was dark, which might influence - but light makes it more obvious that the window would have been open. Awful.

[Anonymous]

Do people think, in general, that parents are more lax on vacation? I am wondering if this played a part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'all. He picked that window because it was open. Think about it - they were 11 stories up. Would her view really be any different if she were standing on the floor? No, it would not. Also - think about where her body had to be for her to flip/fall out of the window.

Or he wanted her to look out one of the clear panes thinking they were different colors.

Which would make him mentally handicapped.

No one thinks 'oh there's one window they painted a different color!'

He knew it was open.

If some of them were open and some closed, and when closed they are “very tinted” as some posts on here have said, he could have looked at the wall of windows and thought they were all closed just some were tinted and others not.

Just stop. Grandpa knew. Of course the family will never admit because a lawsuit is involved and money is more important than what is right. The girl splatted on the ground because of her grandfathers poor choice.

From the photos I've seen I can't understand why he did that. It makes no sense. The story did change after they retained the lawyer, not uncommon. I think he was going to prop her up to look out the window then fell. Kind of what M.J. did with his kid.

I don’t think intentionally dropped her or dangled her out, but I think he did prop her in the ledge and either he slipped and fell/lost balance or she squirmed out.

Grandpa probably had Chloe by her legs, with her standing on the brass railing...which is unbelievably stupid. Baby girl most likely lunged forward to “tap the panes of glass,” and she fell to her death. When I think of that exact moment when she flies from his grip, my heart races. It was so high... how does he live with this??

So damn sad.