The lawsuit against Royal Caribbean/toddler death

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Just how fast are one year olds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Just how fast are one year olds?

Faster than him, evidently. And gravity is faster still.

[Anonymous]

Whatever excuse he can come up with.

[Anonymous]

Wanted to reply "WOW" to this thread, but it's locked.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/852156.page

The cruise line did say they have evidence. I guess they weren't bluffing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wanted to reply "WOW" to this thread, but it's locked.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/852156.page

The cruise line did say they have evidence. I guess they weren't bluffing.

Go back a few pages in this thread and this footage is discussed thoroughly.

[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:

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.

It is an ethical violation to affirmatively misrepresent facts to the Court and a Rule 11 violation (in federal court, but most state courts have analogous rules) to make a pleading that you know has no factual support. Neither rule requires you to disclose all known facts, but you can't make assertions contradicted by the facts. I haven't read his pleading, so I don't know what it said, but it's hard to believe it was consistent with the facts he knew to be true. Unfortunately, courts rarely enforce Rule 11, and it's pretty rare for an attorney to be disciplined by the bar association for lying to a court. (Note that the ethics rules are separate from the court rules. An ethical violation is a higher bar than a Rule 11 violation.)

[Anonymous]

Royal Caribbean has finally responded publicly to the lawsuit. Good for them.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/granddad-toddler-who-died-cruise-ship-fall-knew-window-was-n1117796

"When he arrives at the open window, and while Chloe is on the floor, Mr. Anello leans his upper-torso over the wooden railing and out of the window frame for approximately eight seconds," the cruise line's court motion says. "Because Mr. Anello had himself leaned out the window, he was well aware that the window is open."

"His actions, which no reasonable person could have foreseen, were reckless and irresponsible and the sole reason why Chloe is no longer with her parents," the court motion said.“

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Royal Caribbean has finally responded publicly to the lawsuit. Good for them.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/granddad-toddler-who-died-cruise-ship-fall-knew-window-was-n1117796

"When he arrives at the open window, and while Chloe is on the floor, Mr. Anello leans his upper-torso over the wooden railing and out of the window frame for approximately eight seconds," the cruise line's court motion says. "Because Mr. Anello had himself leaned out the window, he was well aware that the window is open."

"His actions, which no reasonable person could have foreseen, were reckless and irresponsible and the sole reason why Chloe is no longer with her parents," the court motion said.“

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wanted to reply "WOW" to this thread, but it's locked.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/852156.page

The cruise line did say they have evidence. I guess they weren't bluffing.

Go back a few pages in this thread and this footage is discussed thoroughly.

I think this is new information. Someone was describing something like this but didn't say where they had seen it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wanted to reply "WOW" to this thread, but it's locked.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/852156.page

The cruise line did say they have evidence. I guess they weren't bluffing.

Go back a few pages in this thread and this footage is discussed thoroughly.

I think this is new information. Someone was describing something like this but didn't say where they had seen it.

Yes. The new info is that RCI filed a motion to dismiss. See the news article just posted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Royal Caribbean has finally responded publicly to the lawsuit. Good for them.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/granddad-toddler-who-died-cruise-ship-fall-knew-window-was-n1117796

"When he arrives at the open window, and while Chloe is on the floor, Mr. Anello leans his upper-torso over the wooden railing and out of the window frame for approximately eight seconds," the cruise line's court motion says. "Because Mr. Anello had himself leaned out the window, he was well aware that the window is open."

"His actions, which no reasonable person could have foreseen, were reckless and irresponsible and the sole reason why Chloe is no longer with her parents," the court motion said.“

I hate cruises for many reasons, both for personal and ethical reasons. But this was not the cruiseline or ship's fault. The grandfather clearly acted recklessly, and idiotically. I understand the parents are grieving and they may not be able to think rationally, but their lawyer is a scumbag for carrying this on for so long. The sooner everyone accepts the truth, the sooner they can start really grieving and moving forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wanted to reply "WOW" to this thread, but it's locked.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/852156.page

The cruise line did say they have evidence. I guess they weren't bluffing.

Go back a few pages in this thread and this footage is discussed thoroughly.

I think this is new information. Someone was describing something like this but didn't say where they had seen it.

No, we were all saying that we watched the videos (following the links in the thread) and saw exactly this - including the guy leaning half way out the window. If you were one of the annoying people arguing that the family had some kind of case, even with all of us arguing that it is a slam dunk ridiculous case, then I'm glad you finally saw something that convinced you, even if we all saw it ages ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Royal Caribbean has finally responded publicly to the lawsuit. Good for them.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/granddad-toddler-who-died-cruise-ship-fall-knew-window-was-n1117796

"When he arrives at the open window, and while Chloe is on the floor, Mr. Anello leans his upper-torso over the wooden railing and out of the window frame for approximately eight seconds," the cruise line's court motion says. "Because Mr. Anello had himself leaned out the window, he was well aware that the window is open."

"His actions, which no reasonable person could have foreseen, were reckless and irresponsible and the sole reason why Chloe is no longer with her parents," the court motion said.“

I mean, yes, that will likely be the end of the lawsuit here. And yes, clearly he did lean out. However, it is also extremely likely that he didn't realize he was leaning out. I cannot count the number of times I was zoned out, on autopilot, etc. and didn't realize I had don't something or i forgot something. This is exactly how kids get left in cars. It's possible he was up, enjoying the sun, leaned out and didn't put two-and-two together.

I can already hear the heads explode when some of you read this. And that's fine that you're perfect in that way. You would never do it. It's not at al possible. Blah, blah, blah. But, we all know it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Royal Caribbean has finally responded publicly to the lawsuit. Good for them.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/granddad-toddler-who-died-cruise-ship-fall-knew-window-was-n1117796

"When he arrives at the open window, and while Chloe is on the floor, Mr. Anello leans his upper-torso over the wooden railing and out of the window frame for approximately eight seconds," the cruise line's court motion says. "Because Mr. Anello had himself leaned out the window, he was well aware that the window is open."

"His actions, which no reasonable person could have foreseen, were reckless and irresponsible and the sole reason why Chloe is no longer with her parents," the court motion said.“

I mean, yes, that will likely be the end of the lawsuit here. And yes, clearly he did lean out. However, it is also extremely likely that he didn't realize he was leaning out. I cannot count the number of times I was zoned out, on autopilot, etc. and didn't realize I had don't something or i forgot something. This is exactly how kids get left in cars. It's possible he was up, enjoying the sun, leaned out and didn't put two-and-two together.

I can already hear the heads explode when some of you read this. And that's fine that you're perfect in that way. You would never do it. It's not at al possible. Blah, blah, blah. But, we all know it is.

Nobody leans out an 11th story window with the view and the wi d blowing in their face and spaces out to the point they then stop back, pick up a toddler, hang that toddler out the window and then drop her. Anyone who would claim they did is flat out stupid as is anyone who would believe it. Do you also go on roller coasters and Ferris wheels without realizing what you’re doing? Of course not. Don’t be a moron.

[Anonymous]

RC vindicated. Period.